The Fall of the House of ______

[sistermagpie]

This thread turned out to be so interesting, it's gotten me thinking even more about incest in literature and what it stands for. Unfortunately I really haven't read any lit crit on the subject. I have a feeling I'll be surfing around today looking for some. The weird thing, too, is that the subject seems to tie in with other recent subjects on flist, like racism in HP and strangely enough, the South(eastern US).

For now, I'm just thinking about

wayfairer put up a poll on the subject (it's f'locked so I won't link to it), which referenced several well-known works: The Fall of the House of Usher, Flowers in the Attic, Hamlet, Wuthering Heights, Shadow of a Doubt and Turn of the Screw. One aspect of incest in literature that was brought up on pandarus's lj and then here was narcissism. ceris writes: "apparently many psychologists believe that all incest is narcissistic behavior, and that this explains much of the attraction between siblings." This, of course, makes sense because one of the draws of the idea is that these people share a special bond. Much is made of this in Flowers in the Attic, certainly. That work may be completely out of the league of all the other works mentioned in the above list, which are all classics, but maybe that's helpful. Since FitA is never known for its subtly in prose or theme, it perhaps just blurts out what is subtext in better works.

Narcissism as a psychological disorder is defined as "A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy and unconscious deficits in self-esteem. But I think the definitions more at play in these works are 1. Excessive love or admiration for oneself and 2. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. In discussing HP in the other thread, there was a general agreement that incest involving the Weasley family was somehow different than that involving the Malfoys and Blacks. The Malfoys and Blacks are immediately recognizable as the kind of Gothic creations for which this sort of thing is normal, whereas with the Weasleys incest seems more linked to abuse. It seems wrong for the individuals involved while Malfoycest seems "wrong" in a way that suits everything else that's "wrong" about the Malfoys.

And what is that? Well, the Malfoys and the Blacks are both heavily associated with the HP equivalent of racism--they are obsessed with keeping their blood "pure" as well as their world. They hang their family tree on a tapestry to keep track of it, know who is "one of them" and who isn't. Any claim of Purebloodedness, in fact, assumes an interest in one's family history. Ernie Macmillan boasts that his family is pureblooded going back X generations. One of the first things Harry thinks about Ron is that he must be from one of those "old Pureblood families" described by the boy in the robe shop and Harry is right. In fact, since there appears to be just one big Pureblood family broken into subgroups that intermarry, Ron's old Pureblood family is the same as Draco's.

In canon, I love any reference to this type of connection between the two families, and I think it is there, in the subtext, as the basis of the Ron/Draco rivalry. They know who each other is on sight based on things their fathers have said. Their fathers hate each other. Arthur specifically targets Lucius with his raids, and Lucius returns the favor with Ginny. Even better, for me, is the way that the twins and Ron all seem genuinely frustrated by their poverty at times-the twins are perfectly unethical when it comes to getting money. Percy, too, seems eager to win some respect for the family name. To me, there's an underlying Pureblood pride that just isn't spoken because it so conflicts with their public stance. They do believe, imo, that they are just as good as the Malfoys--better, really-and part of that is because of their origins.

This is where I start to think about exactly what I like about the Malfoys and Blacks. In the racism thread lonicera in particular brought up the important point that racism almost always comes down to the idea (misguided as it may be) that these "other people" are threatening one's own way of life. Racism almost always makes some appeal to the way things are "supposed to be" and appeals to self-preservation. I mean, there's the racist mindset that convinced white slavers it was okay to kidnap Africans because they were "suited" to slavery and would benefit from being brought to "civilization" whichever way it happened, but it was really once they were here that we started to see racism in its familiar form, with the idea that African Americans were a threat to the white race, would "pollute" it, rise up against it. And of course from the non-white perspective it's the same thing, only sometimes it's got a more realistic basis. A Native American might be wrong to think a particular white person is out to rob him of his culture, but historically this is exactly what European Americans did. A modern American Indian therefore understandably might see himself as holding on to what he has left. This is not unlike the Southern attitude Aja described in her lj. A way of life is under attack from those people, and they are not going to let it go without a fight. Incest is hardly an unheard of theme in Southern literature--or American literature. The Gothic tradition is originally English, but American Gothic and Southern Gothic are vibrant traditions offering their own spin on it, incest and all.

I realized this is probably why I just can't be totally against families like the Malfoys and the Blacks. To me it's just natural to see something worth preserving in all that history. I *am* disturbed at the idea of Sirius wanting to toss out everything in his house. The whole "cleaning" aspect of OotP seemed aggressive to me, knowing that we're not just getting rid of cobwebs but the things important to the family Sirius hated, mostly lumped together as "dark artifacts." (And don't the Weasley twins keep some of that for themselves? Hmm...) Sirius is openly trying to destroy his family, wipe it out. When the family fights back Sirius himself is destroyed. The family sustains a blow, but there are still a few remnants left. Those remnants seem even more vulnerable now. Draco (the character so many people see as unimportant) seems to be the end of the line for both the Malfoys and the Blacks. Knowing that he is a 50/50 split of these families, the idea of him being destroyed and his inheritance scattered amongst those who don't appreciate it bothers me. It's funny...America has such a history of doing just that, of wiping out the past, forgetting it, and replacing it with the new and shiny. But I think that's also why we tend to be so fascinated with Europeans. If we would just leave something alone long enough to become ancient I think we'd be just as attached to it as we are the old houses of Europe.

The idea of a "House" is always important in classic Gothic lit, with all its incest. There's almost always a family manse, often crumbling and full of secrets, that must be preserved. And that house always refers to both the structure and the family inside. Looking at the above list, there's the House of Usher, that Dollinger mansion, Hamlet's castle, Wuthering Heights, and Bly. Three out of those five even reference the house in the title in some way. (I don't mean to diss Shadow of a Doubt by leaving it out, but it's kind of unique in that it's not exactly Gothic and the people involved are uncle and niece, so further removed than is often considered wrong...although their having the same name clearly indicates not only narcissism, but echoes of a father/daughter connection.) The houses mentioned are also all of them either literally haunted or thought to be so. Again that makes sense--the house is shared by the present and the past. It can't be ignored.

That's why, I think, I can't help but naturally root for these families to continue. We may be seeing the ragged end of a great bloodline, but what a shame to lose all that history, dark and bloody as it may be-and who says it's all dark and bloody? I think it's really natural to relate to a family sticking together. Look, for instance, at the popularity of a show like The Sopranos. The show comes out of the gangster movie tradition, but what is that based on if not the concept of family? Tony and his associates might be criminals, we might be horrified by their violence, but you can't help but see them as the heroes and want them to stay out of the clutches of the FBI, who are soulless. When they force a family member into informing it is they who seem to blame for the eventual outcome, not the family acting to protect itself.

I think the idea of a family name that means something strikes a chord in most humans. In HP, the Weasleys are just as clannish and recognizable as the Malfoys. Not only do the children all have red hair but the parents as well...the Weasleys have plenty of family narcissism, right down to turning their backs on the sibling who "betrayed" them (Percy). And yet this is attractive to Harry, who in many ways has taken Percy's place. Many people who hate the Malfoys dream of OBHWF. I don't believe it is just as simple as saying it's because the Weasleys love each other. Harry has other people who love him. The appeal of the Weasleys is that they are a family--even Malfoy zeroes in on that aspect of Harry's attraction to them. (Ironically, they are Malfoy's family, since he's distantly related, and their on-going feud proves.) So while the Weasleys appear to stand for a rejection of Pureblood clannish values in the way they support intermarriage and welcome Hermione and Harry into their house, the fact remains that what they really represent is exactly what the Malfoys and Blacks do: a tight knit family easily recognizable by the way they all look alike and have the same beliefs. (They even have their own House with a name: The Burrow-possibly this is all that's left of what used to be the Weasley estate?) Even Harry's own ties to his parents are often painted in narcissistic terms: he has his mother's pretty eyes and his father's fetchingly untamable hair. They are his people, as the Dursleys are Dudley's.

The Weasleys and Sirius are all dismissive of the idea of caring about marrying a Pureblood, yet the Weasleys themselves married Purebloods. None of their children are yet married. They all are now mostly associated with mostly non-Purebloods, but if they marry them it will be after the story will be over and they'll have served their purpose here. Perhaps their mates and children will grow to fit the Weasley mold, like Hermione seems ready to do, thus illustrating Ron's point that wizards would have died out without intermarriage, though they don't talk about family members who aren't magical. ETA: I now realize what a bombshell that sentence is--slip of the tongue. What I meant by it is NOT that Hermione and Ron are destined to marry. I just mean that Hermione, who already spends a lot of time with the Weasley family, seems ready to leave the Muggle world mostly behind, so when she interacts with the Weasleys it's not as a foreigner/Muggle but as a witch. And whether or not she marries any Weasley son, I think she has shown she can interact with them on their own terms. For instance, the way she's good at handling the twins, and even reminds people of Molly at times. If Hermione married Ron, or Bill, or even semi-adopted son, Harry, I think she'd be thought of as less of an outsider than, say, Fleur, because she shares so many of their values. (Though I would say she's still obviously not considered family even as much as Harry is, especially by Molly, either because she is Muggleborn or perhaps because she is female.) As it is she's not with anyone, but has, I think, defined a place for herself amongst the Weasleys who currently live at the Burrow, one based more on common values and understanding than on her being someone not brought up to know their ways.

Another thing that's kind of clever about the Weasleys is the way they give the illusion of an extended family like the Malfoy/Blacks simply by having so many children in one family. If Ron had only one sister or an only child the Weasleys would have a totally different appeal. They might appeal to Harry as individuals, but they wouldn't scream Somebody's Idea Of The Ideal Family without their many names, complicated history and in-jokes. It would be harder to imagine another person just slipping in as one more. The Blacks are proud of being Purebloods and Blacks, the Weasleys have just seemingly dropped the part about Purebloods and just concentrated more on being Weasleys.

I think it's that idea that's missing from many people's idea of fictional incest when they just see it in terms of abuse within a family: the self-preservation idea. This is where you get your power. If the Other is attacking from the outside, you fortify yourself from the inside. As the "us" becomes smaller and smaller in numbers, it becomes more incestuous. It's like...you're destroyed one way or the other. Either you die off or your culture disappears. Personally, I've never had a problem with seeing the latter as a problem. In fact, I'm now remembering one time when I was at Versailles in the Hall of Mirrors. It was so beautiful, but at the same time I was so very aware that the very fact that I was allowed in here kind of ruined it. All of us walking around in tee-shirts and sneakers--it wasn't really Versailles, not the way it was meant to be.

Comments

[cleverthylacine]

WTF?

You can argue whether some of Hermione's actions denote attraction to Ron or not, but what in the world makes you think she's growing to fit the Weasley mold?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Sorry-I should edit that. I was thinking of how Hermione is shown as being part of the wizarding world as opposed to the Muggle one, so that when she's at The Burrow she's not introducing a foreign culture but conforming into the culture she lives now. Hermione is one of the few Muggleborns we see questioning Wizard culture, in fact, but her SPEW campaign isn't usually shown as a Muggleborn vs. Wizard topic, since the other Muggleborns don't care about it either.

circling back to racism

[shusu.livejournal.com]

Something of this pinged from a few entries back, I can't remember which. Possibly the 'Mudblood' idea. Going into the mindset of a Pureblood (Slytherin) I was struck by the force of my character's fear/anger about the Muggles, because if they discovered the WW, it would all be over. All the strange peculiarities, all the rich family history, all the magic. And logically the biggest source of leaks are from the mixed families. They really expect all the Finnegans and Grangers to keep this huge secret and not sell it off to a tabloid before you can bring in the Memory Charm squad? Or that the Muggle PM would continue to recognize the legitimacy of the MoM? So I think with the close of the WW to outsiders, and wizards started raising their families away from the Muggles, Salazar's original ideals started mixing with Pureblood preservation. A bill for Muggle Hunting! And in many of the characters' lifetimes.

Silly of me to forget that, when it was such a part of her personality. That idea that "they will take over" is very much an aspect of politicized racism, and easily feedbacks into the mainstream. From "the Jews/gays/etc. run Hollywood" to "the Chinese own all the businesses". The "-blood" misnomer was dragged along, I think-- it's not where its roots are. There's already great shame attached to being a Squib, so how much more to insinuate that Mudbloods have dirty blood i.e. not as much magic as everyone else. In that sense, calling Hermione a Mudblood is... if not worse, more precise than the equivalent n** word. It's calling her a less worthy witch, when her biggest emotional hot-spot is not being good enough to be a witch.

oops forgot.

[shusu.livejournal.com]

^ Pureblood cultural preservation

Oh yes. I had weird friends in high school. We were bemoaning the lack of creative epithets to call white males. We were a mixed group and it was always funnier to call your pal by their respective epithet. (Can you tell I was a tomboy? Ah, good times...) The names one calls the dominant majority wouldn't be written down, would they?

It's interesting that outside the WW, Muggles have the dominant culture. This is a minority; and if the secret got out, all the Vernon Dursleys of the world would be making up ten times the terms for 'those magic folk.' So to me, the whole Mudblood thing smacks of a defensive mechanism. They used to be the dominant culture... now they're not.

In our game we Slytherins always used to complain that the Gryffs didn't understand the importance of blood. They would defend the friends they had just made... but not the history of their families and the age-old alliances. So in that sense, yeah... the likes of Sirius, who did it deliberately, and Harry, who might not know enough of the historical reasons to fight for it... those would be the threats to me, if I believed that we had to keep those doors locked and rooms preserved, at all costs.

Re: oops forgot.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

In our game we Slytherins always used to complain that the Gryffs didn't understand the importance of blood.

Right--and they don't! The funny thing about the Weasleys also, is that they are very pro-Muggle, but as people have pointed out, they are pro-Muggle from a distance. Arthur basically does want to control Muggles. He'll protect them, but through the use of memory charms etc., which is incredibly intrusive. In fact that seems to be something he spends a lot more time doing than the Malfoys do. So while the Malfoys are the ones who are on the surface more racist and afraid of Muggles, Arthur is the one interfering with them more. The DEs at the WW terrorize Muggles in a way Arthur wouldn't, but in a way the DE torment is more honest. Arthur, by contrast, would approach a Muggle in a friendly way, but then mess with their mind out of kindness--though the kindness is really to his own people. *They* don't want to be discovered, so Muggles must be interfered with.

Come to think of it, isn't there some other explanation for why Muggles mustn't know about Magic that again speaks for Muggles, showing that Wizards have decided what's best for them and how they think for them?

Re: oops forgot.

[shusu.livejournal.com]

IIRC, the only real explanation was Hagrid's in SS. And I don't have salt blocks that big *g* Come to think of it, the only official link we heard about was when Sirius was on the loose and the Muggle agencies were put on the alert too. No details, though, so.... could they have befuddled the Muggle PM to put out the alert? I'll have to reread.

[cesperanza.livejournal.com]

This is all really interesting stuff, the way you're relating the Gothic to incest and Houses and History--(and of course, the gothic always WAS about a house; the house itself, with its nooks and crannies, was argued to be a representation of the mind; a house divided from itself; and with its garretts and attics with kids in them, it seems to me that the Weasley house isn't as different from Dracula's castle or the Malfoy estate as it might seem on first glance. It's a similar psychological layout.)

But it also strikes me that you're approaching the House issue as an academic, and academics are in this sense all conservatives--literally, we're worried about the history, the artifacts, the culture, etc. It strikes me that many people would be a great deal LESS worried, the way the average Brit is much more inclined to abandon the whole monarchy than the average American, who wants it as a tourist attraction but not to have to actually LIVE with. I mean, it wouldn't be unreasonable to be anti-House, period--including Hogwarts and its houses--on egalitarian grounds. But I'm with Andrew Blake when he says that Rowling seems, interestingly, more concerned about the tyranny of the middle-class suburbs. I think JKR wants to recouperate some institutions--public university, for one (in the American sense of public, because Hogwarts doesn't seem to be fee-paying)--and strong extended family communities of the kind that the suburbs destroyed (by pulling families out of urban areas and dispersing them, cf Wilmot and Young.)

In other words, race war aside, she seems to prefer the large, subdivided houses of the rich or poor to the 2 bedroom bungalows with all mod cons.

In face, I'll bet that she didn't even plan it in advance--I bet the theme of the race war suggested itself to her once she realized the extent to which she was investing the narrative in these classic Imperial spaces...

Hmm. (Sorry, must think more.. Just in my field, theatre, geography is destiny; tell me what your set looks like, and I'll tell you who you are...)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh don't apologize, I totally agree. And I definitely thought of the "tourist attraction" idea when it came to Americans because you're absolutely right. There are many institutions that inspire affection because they are traditional that nobody should have to live with. That's sometimes a hard thing to have to give up--like I remember on The Real World (yes, I watch TRW--I am ashamed) where they went to Africa and a character was saying it was a shame the people who lived as hunters' world was disappearing. But another person said, correctly, that we had to also accept that if these people wanted to live with Western conveniences we couldn't expect them to live traditionally just so that we could enjoy them. It's the same thing with any number of outdated political ideas. In fact, the whole world of HP is a bit of throwback that way, with its idealized presentation of boarding school life.

I think you're right in saying that JKR is clearly looking for an alternative to the kind of world the Dursleys live in. That does, though, naturally bring in the good and the bad. Because just as that sort of thing can seem a bad thing to those of us who live in it, so can an extended family be stifling to someone who lives in that world. I know people who have absolutely wanted to escape their family--and the Weasleys themselves show some of the problems with that type of thing. I remember Julie Walters on the CoS DVD describing the Burrow as the house everyone would want to live in and I thought she was crazy!

and with its garretts and attics with kids in them, it seems to me that the Weasley house isn't as different from Dracula's castle or the Malfoy estate as it might seem on first glance. It's a similar psychological layout.)

Yes! First, I so love the whole idea of the house as the mind--that concept kind of dominates my own dream life so it makes all too muc sense to me. We've never been to the Malfoy house (though JKR said she wished she could have included the scene there to show the contrast to the Dursleys), but I seem to remember the Burrow described as looking so ramshackle as to be held up by magic which, as Harry reminded himself, it probably was. Also, wasn't it even compared to a pigsty, like that it looked like it had once been one? It sort of suggests a healthy connection to farming and echoes something Malfoy himself would say to insult it. (And I believe swineherds have an association with wizards in Celtic mythology.) It's certainly been built to represent the family that lives there, like the Black house and presumably the Manor.

[cesperanza.livejournal.com]

Right, yes, but if it's a ramshackly farmhouse--which I think you're right; the Weasleys strike me as poor Irish farmers--then it is still the center of a kind of extended community. A farm is an economic institution as much as a manor house is--(in reality, not in the American imagination where it's just a really large suburban house; imexperience, the middle class person forgets the lack of privacy of the manor, because it's not a home it's a place of employment for a on of people)--and the university; also a community, also a place of employment. So JKR seems to be reaching for SOMETHING that's both pre-and-post middle class work-home, production-consumption, urban-suburban capitalism--but in doing so, she's raised the ghosts, so to speak, of aristocracy and race war and yes, yes, you're totally right, all the OTHER problems of community (and I'm with you; I think people fetishize community without understanding that on the flip side of support are limits/restraints.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I agree. This reminds me of that old John Mellencamp song "Small Town." I remember when that used to play on the radio everytime he sang the line about how a small town "let you be just what you want to be," I thought um, no it doesn't, really. At least that's not something for which small towns are known. That's often what people go to cities for!

[ceris.livejournal.com]

I don't think the average Brit (speaking as one) would abandon the Monarchy in favour of a Republic. We're just not that aware of them as an intitution, that's all. We take them for granted, we moan about them, but in general, we wouldn't be rid of them. They're part and parcel of our traditions (what there is left of them).

Hogwarts doesn't seem to be fee-paying but it's still elitist in that only wizards/witches can go there, so it's still very much public school in the old traditional sense.

I think JKR did this very deliberately to point up the elitist elements of our British society (as well as showing up the hideous middle class snobbery), and also to hark back to the 'good old days' of British society - powerful aristocracy instead of the figureheads they are now, jolly japes in public school, etc, when if fact, many people who've been to such schools (including our Royals) absolutely hated them, and the bullying etc etc that used to be almost intitutionalised.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hogwarts doesn't seem to be fee-paying but it's still elitist in that only wizards/witches can go there, so it's still very much public school in the old traditional sense.

And doesn't Hagrid say something about Harry's name being "down for Hogwarts" when he was a baby, suggesting the type of schools that parents have to sign their children up for years in advance? It's an interesting question in itself, because you wonder if everyone in the entire WW is supposed to have gone to exactly this type of school. Even if everyone does go there, it's obviously based on what we'd consider an exclusive school. I believe Justin F-F says that had he not gotten his letter he'd have gone to Eton.

[ceris.livejournal.com]

Yes, Hagrid does say something about that, and it reinforces the elitist tradtion of such schools. I do wonder if all wizards go to such schools or if some slip through the net, or if the wizards who go to places like Hogwarts are the ones who have 'potential' of some kind. I can't remember JKR saying anything like that. And yes, of course you'd expect someone with a name like Justin Finch-Fletchly (?spelling) to go to Eton or somesuch school - that's playing with name stereotypes :-)

[ex-lonicera600.livejournal.com]

I *am* disturbed at the idea of Sirius wanting to toss out everything in his house. The whole "cleaning" aspect of OotP seemed aggressive to me, knowing that we're not just getting rid of cobwebs but the things important to the family Sirius hated, mostly lumped together as "dark artifacts."

Ack! I'm glad you were feeling that, too. I found myself moaning loudly when reading that scene. Even if all that stuff really WERE Dark Arts' artefacts, surely they would do no harm just being enclosed in a display case? The very idea of destroying ones family's past by throwing out all those mementi makes me hurt. And then, who knows, there may come a time when you'll be real glad to have a nose-biting snuffbox...

Another point that disturbed me was that boggart. OK, OK, no one knows what they're good for, but he had lived in that cabinet ... how long? Has he no right to a home? Surely you can sacrifice one cabinet to a homeless creature that does no harm?

Draco (the character so many people see as unimportant) seems to be the end of the line for both the Malfoys and the Blacks. Knowing that he is a 50/50 split of these families, the idea of him being destroyed and his inheritance scattered amongst those who don't appreciate it bothers me.

Same with me. And it would bother me as well to see them reduced to poverty and unimportance. Those creatures are born and bred to be aristocratic and their existence makes the world a more colourful place.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

The very idea of destroying ones family's past by throwing out all those mementi makes me hurt.

Exactly! It's your family history--even if it's bad, it's still your family. There's no reason to deny it. It drives me crazy whenever I see anything like that. The thing is, even people who hate a lot of these old institutions surely take pride in their own history. It's part of what makes us different and special.

And it would bother me as well to see them reduced to poverty and unimportance. Those creatures are born and bred to be aristocratic and their existence makes the world a more colourful place.


Me too. Yes. I mean, of course I think wealthier people should contribute to the care of people who have less so that everyone has the basics of care. But I don't resent people for hitting it big and being fabulously wealthy. I like having that possibility there even if I don't ever live it myself. I don't think aristocrats are better than I am, but I like having them in the world. There's a reason why during the depression all those high comedies were so popular, with rich people living fabulous lives.

Maybe it's just that my mother and her mother always seemed to aspire to that sort of thing in a way I find amusing. Like my mother told me her mother always made it very clear that their family was slightly better than everybody else on the block because they had "come down in the world." Of course, she was never clear on exactly where they'd come down *from.* I just find that endearing.

[lotesse]

Magpie, this is ridiculously cool. I love the Blacks and the Malfoys, because I for one have long felt the abscence of the gothic tradition in fantastic lit. And I think that the Purebloods have a scarily good point about the Muggles. This is different than color bigotry, because there actually are consequences for the wizarding way of life.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Yeah, it's kind of strange that people can act like prejudice against Muggles is just a problem with superficial differences when the entire Wizarding World *hides* from Muggles and spends their time memory charming them, etc.

[ceris.livejournal.com]

I think it's clear that the whole Pureblood thing, as well as obviously showing racism, is a reference to our declining British aristocracy (and Royal Family), which has often inbred. But I find wizards as a whole believing themselves superior to we Muggles, although not in as obviously racist a way as the Purebloods are, although quite often we're represented (referred to) as stupid, if not downright nasty (Dursleys being the prime example of middle class Muggle snobbery and hysteria). And of course, with the Purebloods, narcissism must be a factor in their incestuous behaviour - no one else is 'good' enough to mate with them, and the smaller the gene pool becomes, the greater the narcissistic behaviour.

The Weaselys seem to be at the bottom end of the scale - a good family perhaps, but rather like the council estate kids that everyone knows, slightly scruffy, poor, lots of kids. Incest there would of course be a very different matter, since they are presumably not trying to conserve the bloodline.

I agree with you with what you said about Sirius attempting to destroy his whole dynasty - the decay and infestation of the whole Black house however speaks of the fall of dynasty (very House of Usher, I thought) so in effect it's crumbling anyway. Sirius seems to be trying to 'clean' his family of its internal genetic decay (and of course, if he was with Lupin in canon, he would presumably not be providing it with any more heirs. This is, as you say, entirely Gothic in its approach to aristocracy and dynasty.

Another great thread :-)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And you're right, I think the whole crumbling house is usually supposed to reflect a corruption of the genetic stock--so you've got madness and violence and inbreeding as part of the whole picture. Though it's interesting to contrast that with the people of the current generations, as it would be depressing to think there's no hope at all.

Sirius himself was destroyed by circumstance and his family turned against him, but what about Purebloods like Draco who are clearly part of the fold? He could be destroyed like Regulus, but it would be nice to just have him learn something. He doesn't yet seem insane, and if he's dating Pansy Parkinson well, she's not the nicest girl but she doesn't seem to be his first cousin either.;-) She always strikes me as someone who's from a good family whose bloodline just doesn't go back as far back as the Blacks or the Malfoys. There's no mention of Parkinson Death Eaters either. I don't see any particular storyline with this as I don't know how much page space would be devoted to something like that, but it seems like this last book took the issue of family very seriously, with different characters either trying to get away from their families (and ending badly) or rehabilitate them (Hagrid with Grawp, which was more ambiguous). Sirius and his mother seemed to only be capable of yelling at each other from extreme points of view. I wonder if Narcissa will prove the savior of her own family line in some way.

[ceris.livejournal.com]

I think with Lucius' imprisonment, Draco will become more Pureblood-minded than ever. He is, I suppose, head of the Malfoy clan now (which seems to be a patriarchal institution to me). He might be dating Pansy but he might not be allowed to have a marriage with her if it came to that. There might be another cousin or something somewhere that the family have lined up for him. Narcissa seems to be every bit as brainwashed as the rest of them; call me pessimistic, but I can't see her being a saviour from her limited portrayal so far.

I really, really hope that JKR does something interesting with Draco though, instead of keeping him as he is, because he's just two dimensional for me. I'm hoping that the Lucius imprisonment thing will either bring him out as a villain with a motive, or that it will lead to some kind of redemption for him. Either way, I can see the bond of family becoming more important here.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I agree-the family bond seems like it should become more important. His family's been threatened personally now.

I do hope there's something interesting done with him, though I'm not holding my breath. Obviously his family interests me so I'd like to see it standing strong (if battered) in the end, but that doesn't mean the author sees it that way.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

*Bows down in worship of superior literary analysis* Damn. That was truly fascinating. I looove the comparison to Gothic literature, and also the focus on Sirius' 'cleaning' of Grimmauld Place. Absolutely fabulous.

I'm going to have to stew over all this for a while before I can figure out anything more intelligent to say.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

I'm such a packrat and have such trouble throwing things away I think I was naturally just thinking, "Gah! What are you doing???"

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Me too, but I thought it was just me being insane and sentimental. Now that you've pointed out the larger significance of it, though, it makes a lot more sense, from a literary standpoint.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

I'm still processing all this, but this struck me:

I *am* disturbed at the idea of Sirius wanting to toss out everything in his house. The whole "cleaning" aspect of OotP seemed aggressive to me, knowing that we're not just getting rid of cobwebs but the things important to the family Sirius hated, mostly lumped together as "dark artifacts." (And don't the Weasley twins keep some of that for themselves? Hmm...) Sirius is openly trying to destroy his family, wipe it out.

I keep thinking Sirius=Quentin Compson, yet another literary participant in an incestuous relationship in The Sound and The Fury, and his desperate, "I don't hate the South, I don't" at the end of Absalom, Absalom (which also deals with race, incest and miscegenation and actually includes the line, "It wasn't the incest, it was the miscegenation" as a reason for Thomas Sutpen to disapprove of his daughter's marriage to Charles Bon).

Draco (the character so many people see as unimportant) seems to be the end of the line for both the Malfoys and the Blacks.

How does Tonks fit in? She's definitely a mutant, she's female, she's taken Sirius's side, hasn't the family name, and is the product of apparent miscegenation.

If JKR hadn't been so linguistically specific with the book 6 title, I'd have suspected it of referring to Tonks, who appears to be the opposite of Draco in many ways.

Anyway, incredibly compelling post. I do distinguish between the incest occurring among Weasleys (and also, to be truthful, the Malfoys as we know them) from what is likely to have occurred amongst the Blacks, who are the epitome of Gothic. The Weasleys seem to come from a whole separate literary tradition, and as such, operate under different rules.

Also, they actually seem to love each other in a fairly non-abusive, happy family way, and Narcissa and Lucius appear to care for their son. The Blacks, otoh... not so much.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Quentin Compson was definitely on my mind in writing this post--I love Quentin.:-)

I wasn't sure exactly what to make of Tonks. On the one hand she's a Black, but otoh she seems to not be someone who could really be said to represent the "Pureblood ways." The interesting thing about canon is that while characters who care too much about blood being pure are racist, blood itself is an obsession of the whole narrative--particularly in this next book, apparently! Sometimes it seems like the mixture of the two--the halfbloods--are subtly seen to be the best way to go. And that works symbolically if you're saying it's better for the two sides to meet in the middle but if you take it literally it's just as bad as the idea that Purebloods are better.

So with Tonks I feel like she may be a Black by blood but she's been raised outside of the culture, really. So it's a bit like any child of any ethnic or cultural group raised by "others." Does she feel any connection to the Blacks outside of her mother and Sirius who both share her views? So she's more healthy, but at the same time represents the same destruction of family Mrs. Black shrieks about, because she doesn't care about all the stuff they care about, you know?

It was weird in that scene looking at the tapestry when whoever it was was talking about Narcissa marrying a "good Pureblood" or whatever because it reminded me of, say, a Jewish mother wanting her daughter to marry a Jew. Is it snobbery or is it the way the culture's been preserved for thousands of years? I mean, there was only one person in that house who unashamedly did love the Blacks and lived by the values they did, and that was Kreacher. He wasn't understood by anyone, but I'm sure any one of the Malfoys would have thought he made perfect sense.

Anyway, incredibly compelling post. I do distinguish between the incest occurring among Weasleys (and also, to be truthful, the Malfoys as we know them) from what is likely to have occurred amongst the Blacks, who are the epitome of Gothic.

Definitely-oh, and thanks! I think that's why I wonder about what JKR would do with Draco, because while he comes from this line and is "one of" these people in terms of beliefs and all that, he's not a crazy, over the top, Gothic creation. He's also just a regular kid. So it's hard to imagine him being tossed on the pyre as just part of a rotton family.

[hesychasm]

Wow -- this is a really awesome take on the House concept. Just speaking personally, I wish I'd seen it before writing my latest fic, which has Draco not only leaving his family house after it's besieged and ransacked by Aurors, but also a disintegration of the Hogwarts houses, and at the end an implication that Hogwarts is decaying and losing its usefulness, that it must be left behind in order for a person to move on. Reading your thoughts sort of crystallizes the vague ideas and impressions I'd been operating on when I was writing. I think your take on it -- this tension where on the one hand you want to preserve all of that history and family and background, and on the other this sort of abandonment of self that happens when the house is crumbling and you just have to get out and start over again -- is really on the money.

Memorifying this post forthwith!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And yeah, it seems like these are all images that we sort of know and understand on some level without thinking about them.

That's fascinating to bring the Hogwarts houses into it too...in terms of moving on, it seems like it's sort of like integrating the self. Like the houses within the school are different aspects of the self and in order to grow up the barriers have to break down so they're all one house! your fic sounds excellent.:-)

[mizbean.livejournal.com]

That was a really interesting read.

I wanted to add my two cents to a minor part of your post.

(Though I would say she's still obviously not considered family even as much as Harry is, especially by Molly, either because she is Muggleborn or perhaps because she is female.)

One thing Hermione has that Harry doesn't have is a parent. I think that I why Molly has pretty much adopted Harry. Even though Hermione spends a lot of time with the Weasleys, she still has family obligations of her own which I'm sure Molly recognizes.

I think the idea of a family name that means something strikes a chord in most humans. In HP, the Weasleys are just as clannish and recognizable as the Malfoys. Not only do the children all have red hair but the parents as well...the Weasleys have plenty of family narcissism, right down to turning their backs on the sibling who "betrayed" them (Percy).

Interesting observation.

I too was disturbed by Sirius's sacking of his family heirlooms. Maybe it was my antique-loving side of me coming out, but I couldn't understand why they had to throw away the family dishes and silver.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

One thing Hermione has that Harry doesn't have is a parent. I think that I why Molly has pretty much adopted Harry. Even though Hermione spends a lot of time with the Weasleys, she still has family obligations of her own which I'm sure Molly recognizes.


Oh! Good point! That was really silly of me not even thinking about that! But yes, I think that's definitely part of it. Molly sees herself as a mother to Harry in ways she would never to Hermione, if only for the simple fact that Hermione has a mother!

I too was disturbed by Sirius's sacking of his family heirlooms. Maybe it was my antique-loving side of me coming out, but I couldn't understand why they had to throw away the family dishes and silver.

I know! And I felt like that just played out in the end, where Sirius wound up vulnerable because he threw away so much. Symbolically, that is. I mean, it just seems like family is so important in this universe--when you think of the parents that are important it's almost always Purebloods because they are the ones that have a history in the WW. So the Wizarding kids seem more aware of their geneology that way. But it seemed like Sirius tried to completely walk away from his family and that's why he ended up with no one to fight for him--when his friends believed he was a traitor his family let him rot in jail as well. Percy could possibly wind up in the same boat, even if the Weasleys don't seem half as vindictive as the Blacks.

[moojja.livejournal.com]

What is interesting to me is that how easily people forget that Hermione has parentsm for a very good reason. They are barely mentioned in the books. as the books progress, we see less and less of them. Why is Hermione spenting so much time w/ the Weasely? She spents most of her time in boarding school, but she then spents the summer w/ another family? I think it is another way of showing how the muggleborn are intergrated into the wizard system. They don't seem to bring in a fresh infuse of culture, as much as shedding them at the door, and embracing the wizard culture (or having the wizard culture forced on them). In the interesting part, regarding Half-Blood is that you don't see and balance of muggle or wizard culture with muggle-borns. It is always the wizard culture.
Arthur’s view muggles like clever monkeys. It is very much like British imperialism. Hermione is very much forced to give up her native culture and take up the new wizard culture in order for her to use her magic. So of like Asian students would cut their hair and covert to Christianity, before they could be taught western science. I wonder if there is an alienation between Hermione and her parents, b/c the way she seem to have rejected her muggle family for the wizard one.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I have definitely wondered that myself, particularly when I imagine a girl who spends nine months at a boarding school where her parents can't even phone her announcing she doesn't want to go on a ski vacation, but will spend Xmas at school or at the house of a school friend, oh, and she'll spend half the summer there too. I think this also helps to cover up the obvious real conflicts there would be between Muggleborns and Purebloods--it really wouldn't just be the Purebloods seemingly turning up their noses just to be mean. I can't imagine if I were in a place like that that I wouldn't have plenty of things I'd want to bring with me into this real world.

It's weird...with Harry's family it makes sense he doesn't see them because they hate his guts. Yet he sometimes seems to almost spend more time at home than Hermione does. He may not get along with the Dursleys but they do seem like family (a dysfunctional one). Hermione seems to deal with her parents like kindly landlords or something.

[eido.livejournal.com]

it seemed like Sirius tried to completely walk away from his family and that's why he ended up with no one to fight for him--when his friends believed he was a traitor his family let him rot in jail as well.

Perhaps this is me over-simplefying things, but I also was somewhat jarred by Sirius' apparent vehemence in cleansing the Black family home of it's "dark artifacts". I took it as a sort of representation of Sirius' want to cleanse himself. Of course, this is impossible since he carries the Black family wherever he goes... in his blood, his physical appearance. Every time he ever looks into a mirror he'll be reminded of everything he can't just throw away. Hence, the cleansing of the house was something like a compensation... but it's only superficial compensation. An exercise in futility. He can't wipe the Black from himself, so he'll expend all his energies in trying to remove it from his surroundings. It ends ultimately in deep-seeded hatred of his family, but it also points to rather disturbing self-loathing issues too. Hence we also get the shades of full blown alcoholism, feelings of inadequacy, loneliness, depression, etc.

This cleansing also puts me to mind of the almost obsessive cleanliness of Petunia's home. The obsessive-compulsive need of cleanliness and untaintedness. As Petunia is reminded perpetually looking at Harry of the taint in her blood... so she (over-)compensates these feelings of frustration in this unreachable, unwashable internal filth, once again superficially, in the need to create "untainted", perfect surroundings. This also spills into her treatment of her son. Practically putting him on this pedestal as this pampered little prince and the energies she puts into this is comparable to the squeaky clean ship she keeps, to compensate for the taint she's passed down to him. An eternal cycle of apologizing for her unintended contamination of him. I wonder too often what exactly Dumbledore has over Petunia in that she allows herself to be subjegated to this never-ending OCD by keeping Harry around, it's assuredly something huge. I wouldn't be wholly surprised it has exactly to do with this "unreachable filth" (namely, the "filth" she's inevitably passed to Dudders).

I'm also undecided on how I see the Weasleys', spear-headed by Molly, part in this cleansing of the Black family home. Not suggesting there was any conscious awareness of participating in this theoretical Sirius' self-loathing... but they were written having this considerable and unmerciful part in this cleansing, just as Sirius. It could be they represent a sort of surrogate of the now deceased Potters, or perhaps the undark portion of the WW in general, who had taken Sirius in and treated him as a son in spite of his family. Sirius couldn't move on, because he's smack in the middle of this environment where his past apparently SHOULD be tossed out and ignored unapologetically, because it's something (indirectly, again in the case of the Weasleys) that IS worthy of shame. At least that's how Sirius likely sees in some part of himself. This is likely why Sirius was probably never going to overcome his feelings of abnormality and inferiority... he's constantly reminded of the unacceptableness and shame of his past. The past he sees in Kreacher and Bellatrix, the past he sees in every mirror.

Although I also think it's telling the one person who at least attempted acceptance over this environment of ignoring and mercilessness is Hermione through her want to protect Kreacher. In a way, this could be viewed as an attempt (all too late) of trying to say, "Your past (symbolised in Kreacher) is part of you. It's inescapable and shouldn't be a means for you to continue hating yourself. Don't let this world around you make you feel anymore ashamed." However, these are attempts unfortunately lost on Sirius. He was too fargone, the self-hatred ran too deep. It's also all too tragically telling that it was yet another living representation of Sirius' past, Bellatrix, who killed Sirius in the end. As if the shame of his past ultimately consumed him, making him fall through the "black" tattered Veil.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes! This is great! The whole theme of trying to cleanse something in yourself is all over the place--Voldemort has passed something of himself to Harry, Sirius is a Black, Mrs. Black sees everyone who isn't a Pureblood as contaminated, Petunia feels her own blood is contaminated. The whole theme of Purebloods points to this--though as we see with Sirius is works both ways. The Purebloods can say they want Muggle filth out of their house but Sirius can just as easily fall prey to feeling tainted by his own Pureblood.

Hermione's attempts with Kreacher also always remind me of Snape's worst memory when Lily tells James to stop bullying him. I understand fully, in both cases, why Kreacher and Snape get even angrier at this. To have a Mudblood protect them implies they have fallen even farther than they can stand. It's insulting to Kreacher to have Hermione offer him things, just as Snape is infuriated by Lily's offering protection.

Hmmmm....this is now making me flashback to the second meeting of Harry and Draco on the train. Draco says he'll keep Harry away from the wrong sort (which in his case means Ron, who will possibly introduce him to non-Purebloods). Harry significantly refuses to shake Draco's hand--echoing some of Draco's insults to Hermione about not wanting to touch her because he's just washed his hands and doesn't want to slime them up--and says he can tell the wrong sort for himself. Throughout the series Harry will then always see Malfoy as a symbol of what not to do, wanting to distance himself from him. Yet there are subtle hints that this is difficult to do, just in the way that Malfoy recognized *him* as being "his sort," and that James, Harry's father, was obnoxious himself (made even more complicated when Harry, who's now wanting to distance himself from James, nevertheless puts himself in James' place when he says the only person he would torment the way James tormented Snape was Malfoy).

Phew--there's a lot of freaking out about identity and it all seems to center around wizards. Hermione, the Muggleborn, is the one character the fandom associates with shame because of her blood, yet she's the one person whom I don't think shows that type of self-loathing. Some people have suggested her over-achievement is connected to her being a Muggle, but I've never felt she was driven by any shame over her parentage. She could feel like she's at a disadvantage having grown up Muggle, but she doesn't strike me as longing to be a Pureblood.

[eido.livejournal.com]

Voldemort has passed something of himself to Harry

Voldemort, aka Tom Riddle, is a half-blood and in his mindset, tainted. Harry is doubly tainted for being born a half-blood but being reborn by Voldemort, a corrupted half-blood. Heh. The most "tainted" character in the story - per the basic fundamentals of this world - is possibly this world's only salvation.

I suppose when Harry realizes he isn't contaminated this is when he'll be able to win. There really aren't any characters in the story quite literally born with this capacity of latent understanding of so many duelling sides like Harry. At the moment, he's so biased by one side (the Weasley side), I can't imagine it will be easy at all for him to find any sort of balance.

Sirius can just as easily fall prey to feeling tainted by his own Pureblood.

It's like there was no escape for him. He's quite literally imprisoned, first in Azkaban, then in Grimmauld Place... but yet he's really always been a prisoner. An "acceptable" wizard trapped in a "dark wizard family's" body... it's a prison of his own making, but also influenced by the antiquated world he's enveloped in where history, blood and tradition are the backbone. How could we ever expect Sirius to believe he'd be anything but an aberration in a world that doesn't ever change?

Discussing issues like this, Arthur's words in COS keep coming back to me. It's hard for me to believe they once made me uplifted. They're down right haunting now. "We have a very different idea what disgraces the name wizard, Malfoy." All the more tragic when I think of Sirius, trapped in himself and the WW's tradition.

Hermione, the Muggleborn, is the one character the fandom associates with shame because of her blood, yet she's the one person whom I don't think shows that type of self-loathing.

I agree to an extent, but I do think Hermione suffers from a desperate desire to belong. However, as you say, I don't believe she's ashamed of her blood. I do think logical Hermione fully realizes this is something that she'll never be able to change about herself so it's useless to be ashamed of it (she has that liberty not being born/raised/abused/trapped as Sirius was). However, I do think Hermione for a good portion of the story has made deeply concerted efforts in trying to belong in this other world in about every other way BUT feeling uselessly ashamed (like Sirius). I do believe she feels pressure of her own kind to fit in due to believing she would be automatically marginalized for being muggleborn. She wants to succeed and be accepted in this new world, so in order to do that, she feels she has to work that much harder. Beyond any possible pre-existant love of learning.

However, Hermione is also a young girl and feels (or felt) the pressure and is hurt by this (perceived? experienced?) marginalization. If for anything, it can be shown - at least in her mind - as a possible means of depriving her companionship. Singling her out, prolonging loneliness and possibly, despite her logic, leading to feeling abnormal (which is a dangerous path, as we see with Sirius). This could partly be why she's so acutely hurt by Ron - a pureblood (since this is all she really knew of him at the time, he wasn't in all the history books like Harry was) - insulting her for having "no friends". Hermione is over-compensating her book smarts to make up for fear of ostracization, trying to succeed and belong in the world Ron was born in, yet this is the same thing she's being mocked for by pureblood Ron. Unintentionally implying no matter what Hermione does she won't have friends (she won't be accepted) in this brave new world. No wonder Hermione had locked herself away in the girl's bathroom crying all afternoon (Myrtle redux, anyone?). Ron's insulting of Hermione actually reminds me of Fred/George feeding Dudley the ton-tongue toffee. Neither F/G or Ron did what they did because their victims were muggles, but it can still be damaging for that basic fact. Arthur for his work and Hermione for her sensitivity to feeling ostracized in a strange, old-fashioned world.