GOF Chapter 5: Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes

[oryx_leucoryx]

Fred is excited at the thought of Dudley eating deadly candy. Oh, *untested* deadly candy, that's even better!
Harry takes an instinctive liking to Charlie because everything in his appearance says 'physical, uncomplicated'. Bill is more of a surprise - you can be a Head Boy *and* 'cool'. (Just like your dad, Harry. Now you don't have to worry he was anything like Percy, in case you ever were.) How does Harry know what people who attend rock concerts look like? Probably from TV.

Yes Arthur, pranking Muggles in life-endangering ways without doing the responsible thing and mind-wiping them in the aftermath undermines wizard-Muggles relations. Unlike, say, taking their magical kids and turning them against their parents.

The Dursleys excuse away Dudley's misdeeds. Arthur is a much superior parent - he doesn't let his wife know about the twins' (or at least tries to avoid letting her know). It does seem as though Hermione caught on quickly and tried to do her bit of protecting the twins from Molly.

This is Hermione's first stay at the Burrow - and she is here even before Harry, who has been here before and who might need 'rescuing' from his home. I wonder how long Hermione was there before Harry's arrival. Nevertheless, this was the last summer she will spend any significant time with her parents. And she will only spend Christmas of 6th year with them because of the Ron/Lavender relationship. To remind you, Hermione will turn 15 next month - an emancipated minor for all intent  and purpose.

For the first time in canon, Ginny isn't at all awkward around Harry. Despite not having started dating any other boys yet. (Or has she and we weren't told? We don't know when she and Hermione had their little talk.)

I'm supposed to think Percy is a pompous, ambitious idiot for taking work home and caring about it. Being an adult I see Percy as acting normally and Ron being an immature idiot. BTW after seeing Neville's molten cauldrons can't Ron appreciate looking into safety standards? (No, because danger everywhere is what makes life worth living for most Gryffindors.)

Why are Bill and Charlie staying in the twins' room? In later books (HBP and DH) Bill will suddenly have his own room, which he will also share with Charlie. See www.hplex.info/wizworld/places/w_pl_burrow.html. Did Molly and Arthur decide to add rooms (on the lower floors!) after their sons started leaving home?

Ron is annoyed by his owl. This is typical of Ron - he laments not having things, and when he does he laments them again, even when they aren't obviously unsuitable or in bad shape or taste.

Ron makes a homophobic wisecrack at Percy and his boss. BTW according to the Black Family Tree, it appears Bartemius Crouch Sr is Arthur's first cousin. This together with his outward personality and his position all make him an ideal surrogate father to Percy. (Which starts the theme of disappointed sons in this book.)

Ginny is still an outsider to the trio's adventures - as far as Harry knows. Neither of them had openly shared their involvement with Sirius' escape. (BTW Harry still hasn't questioned if perhaps Albus was a tad responsible for there not being more people aware of what Sirius was or wasn't guilty of.)

Crookshanks was one of the heroes of last year's adventure - sniffing Peter out in his rat disguise, communicating with Sirius, sending messages by post. This year he's just a cat who chases gnomes.

Molly rants about the twins. She blames them of lacking ambition. No Molly, they are more ambitious than anyone in the family. It's just that their ambition is to make a lot of money fast, while causing as much property destruction and humiliation to those around their customers as possible, instead of doing well at school and getting a government job. Oh, Molly did receive the occasional owl from the school about the twins. Though I do wonder if Albus or Minerva framed their actions as bullying the way Dudley's teachers apparently described his stunts. Also, Molly mistakes a twin-made fake wand for her own, thus starting the emphasis on wands in this book. (There will also be emphasis on wands in DH, but everything will work completely differently, despite Rowling's claims about planning and plotting. You have been warned.)

There was a time I found Bill and Charlie's table-duel endearing. By now I have had enough of Gryffindor boisterous behavior.

Even Bill joins those who dis Percy. Because while he works for a bank, his job description is robbing graves, which is much better than working in an office regulating international commercial transactions.

I love Percy's earnestness and enthusiastic attitude. His criticism of Bagman is on relevant points - organizing the Quidditch World Cup sounds like something that should have fallen mostly on a department dedicated to Magical Games and Sports (an entire department for that? not a subdivision of a Department for Cultural Affairs or similar? Tells you everything about wizards and their priorities), and an employee going missing for 'over a month' in a place known to be the location of Voldemort in whatever form he was isn't something to ignore. But to Arthur what matters is that by covering up illegal activities of Ludo's brother he got tickets to the Top Box, so he won't be hearing criticism of his friend. Who had bribed him. However having grown up in the Weasley household I think this goes over even Percy's head. Understandably but tragically Percy interprets Bartemius' concern for Bertha's whereabouts as that of a caring boss for a former underling. Of course he is actually concerned because she had subconscious information that might be of use to Voldemort (as well as cause much trouble to Crouch himself if revealed to the public). It has been several years since Bertha became brain damaged. Since Harry forgot all about his dream the mention of her name rings no bells.

Ginny defends Bill's hairstyle to Molly. Showing us that despite lack of awkwardness around Harry this is still her first personality, whose favorite brother was Bill. Next year we'll see Ginny v 2.0 whose role models are the twins.

The Quidditch chatter reveals that like in football (soccer for USians), Britain has separate 'national' teams for England, Scotland and Wales. But all three lost at some point.

Harry confirms - the letter about his scar hurting was the first he sent to Sirius, after receiving 2 from him in addition to the letter he got at the end of POA. Sirius 3, Harry 1. Even with people who are close to him he is more of a taker than a giver.

The twins sent Percy dragon dung in the mail, how hilarious! How kind, how mature.

Comments

[cured4life.livejournal.com]

I think Severus was intended to be the same mix as both Tom and Harry. One pure blood, one muggle. Harry does clarify that the Prince family was pure blood and as such can be called canon.

I've never understood why it isn't accepted that the Snape family wasn't living in poverty and misery because they were living as muggles....which follows with JKR and her treatment/opinion of the muggles.

[oryx_leucoryx]

I've never understood why it isn't accepted that the Snape family wasn't living in poverty and misery because they were living as muggles....which follows with JKR and her treatment/opinion of the muggles.

I'm afraid you lost me there. Too many negations for me to follow. Do you mean the Snapes were pretending to be Muggles and therefore had to pretend to be more poor than they actually were? Or do you mean they were living in misery because all Muggles live that way? The latter is contradicted by the Dursleys, the Grangers with their trips to France, the Finch-Fletchleys and their Eton-bound son. As well as the Riddles. I'm not sure what you mean.

Certainly little Severus' behavior shows he did not dress the way he did of his own preference - he tries to hide his clothes, only opening his coat when it gets dark.

[cured4life.livejournal.com]

No I mean the fact that they lived as muggles was why they were so miserable.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Lily clearly wasn't miserable. Nor was Hermione. Or Dudley.

The Snapes were poor. But there's more to just poverty to their misery - poverty does not have to imply neglect. Now, if Eileen was not used to the workings of the Muggle world and was either incapable or refused to use magic to improve her family's living conditions then that put one kind of limit to their means. Another factor seems to be that Tobias gave up on his son once he realized the son belonged in a different world - because an involved father would make sure his son wore socially-appropriate clothes, at the very least, even if they came from a church rummage sale or the like. So living as Muggles was an indirect factor in the state of the Snapes because Eileen wasn't equipped to live that way, or at least not effectively when her means were limited.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Poverty in the Potterverse seems to imply an inability to do simple household charms, though. Molly can't be bothered to fix up those dress robes for Ron. Looked and smelled like his aging aunt's might. So, poor witches can't do household spells or care enough about how badly their children dress. Muggle Tobias probably couldn't fight such a weight of destiny to get his son dressed properly.

Heck, maybe it's all the stupid witch's fault for not knowing those handy-dandy house-holdy spells. No wonder Tonks died!

And, look at the Gaunts. Poor, living in a hovel, strange eyes, strange manners, creepy possible breeding practices, Merope's inability to save herself, which is portrayed as a lack of courage instead of a lack of good nutrition and medical attention...

Poverty is obviously a fault in the Potterverse, even for the otherwise Gryffindor-pure Weasleys.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

The Snapes were poor. But there's more to just poverty to their misery - poverty does not have to imply neglect.

Exactly. Which actually raises the question as to just how impoverished the Snapes supposedly were.

I'm not saying they were rich, and they weren't in the economic class of the Evans or Dursleys...but do we know for a fact that they were "poor" in the strict sense of the term?

Rowling really gives us almost nothing about the Snapes, and really it boils down to fans making assumptions based on a few glimpses Harry has of Snape's childhood memories.

Young Severus is said to have an "air of neglect", or outright look neglected...but as you state, neglect doesn't necessarily imply poverty. Parents who are well-off financially can still neglect their children, and many parents who don't have two pennies to rub together still take the time to make sure their children are clean and neat even if they have to wear hand-me-downs.

For all we know, the mill may still have been active when Severus was a child, with Tobias working full-time and maybe even overtime. Perhaps Tobias was a skinflint and didn't like to spend money if he felt he didn't have to. We just don't know.

because an involved father would make sure his son wore socially-appropriate clothes

Okay, now you've touched on my own personal soapbox issue (which resulted in the challenge which in turn resulted in the fan fiction I'm writing)...

The memory of Severus first meeting Lily occurred in 1969 -- Snape we are told was born January 9, 1960, therefore since Rowling tells us that both Sev and Lily are 9 y.o. in that memory, the year has to be 1969.

I turned 16 that year. I can tell you that a smock shirt and an overlarge coat would NOT have been considered all that unusual for a young male to be wearing. High-water jeans yes...THEY would have elicited snarky comments, but not the smock and coat.

ESPECIALLY the smock; smock shirts/"poet" shirts/"gypsy blouses" were de rigeur attire in that very Hippie Era, even (some may say especially) for young men. Severus wearing a smock, even if it was a woman's smock, would not have been considered all that strange.

Granted, Rowling is talking about an industrial mill town which, I presume, would have been generally as conservative as the mill towns were in the area where I grew up in New England. So Petunia, reflecting a conservative attitude/mindset, would probably have something snarky to say about anything she considered an odd attire.

But if poor Sev had lived in London, he would have fit right in with the Carnaby Street fashions of the era (except for the high-water jeans). Too bad the kid couldn't have figured out a way to get to the Woodstock Festival in America that year, he would have fit right in:

http://majorjune.livejournal.com/tag/smocks

Anyway, my point is that all we can say with a modicum of certainty is that young Severus seemed to be neglected to some extent, but we can't make a definitive determination as to his family's degree of poverty based on that. They may well have been lower blue-collar, but that doesn't mean that they were abjectly poor.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Interesting about smocks. But what does that say about Tobias, if he approved of hippie-style attire for his 9 year old son?

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Interesting about smocks. But what does that say about Tobias, if he approved of hippie-style attire for his 9 year old son?

Who says that he did? Perhaps *if* the Snapes were really poor, Eileen and Tobias made do with what they could get from the Salvation Army (or whatever the British equivalent is), second-hand shops, etc. I'm not saying that Eileen and/or Tobias knew that they were dressing their son like a hippie, I'm only saying that the outfit Rowling describes would actually have been quite acceptable in 1969 amongst certain people.

I read someone's opinion posted somewhere that Sev's outfit in 1969 could have been a little boy's attempt to mimic what adult wizards would wear, but with only Muggle clothing to work with.

FWIW, in my fan fiction Tobias doesn't approve of how 9 y.o. Sev dresses, but that's just my personal opinion being expressed.

[oryx_leucoryx]

So are we in agreement that Severus' outfit is an indication of both the poverty of the Snapes, and lack of involvement of Tobias in his upbringing at that point? Because an involved Tobias would have made sure his clothing-blind witch of a wife selected clothes that are typical for boys his age in their neighborhood?

I read someone's opinion posted somewhere that Sev's outfit in 1969 could have been a little boy's attempt to mimic what adult wizards would wear, but with only Muggle clothing to work with.

I have seen this view too, but I thing Severus' behavior indicates otherwise. Because he behaves as though he is ashamed of his outfit. If he wore it to look like a 'real wizard', the opinion of Muggle Petunia wouldn't have affected him, he wouldn't have hidden his outfit under the coat until dark.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

So are we in agreement that Severus' outfit is an indication of both the poverty of the Snapes, and lack of involvement of Tobias in his upbringing at that point?

I will admit that that scenario is what I present in my fan fiction.

But if I'm honest with myself, I'll also admit that all we can really surmise is that Tobias probably wasn't buying Sev's clothes. We don't know if the clothes really mean poverty, or that Tobias was a skinflint who kept most of his paycheck and couldn't see why a lot of money should be spent on clothes for a little boy when stuff from second-hand stores -- or, for all we know, clothes that had belonged to members of Tobias' family that may have been sitting in trunks in the attic -- would suit.

Maybe Tobias felt that a 9 y.o. boy would ruin good clothes, so perhaps he felt that as long as whatever Sev had on was reasonably clean and not falling apart at the seams, that it was fine.

Maybe Tobias himself had to wear similar clothes when he was that age, and felt that if it was good enough for him, it was good enough for his son. We just don't know.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

If he wore it to look like a 'real wizard', the opinion of Muggle Petunia wouldn't have affected him, he wouldn't have hidden his outfit under the coat until dark.

I got the idea that he was trying to dress like a wizard, I thought the coat was just to represent the robe look that is common among male magical people. He seems to have a real sense at 9 about magic and the world of the magic people even though he appears to be living in the muggle world.

I didn't get the feeling he was hiding as much I thought he was attempting to get as close as he could to wearing wizard clothing.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Believe me, a boy in a smock in a Northern mill-town would've stood out like a sore thumb.

I actually acknowledged that in my post. I pointed out that I assumed that British mill towns would have been generally as conservative as mill towns here in NEW England, and that Petunia in particular seemed very into fitting in with what is deemed "the norm".

Which is why I said that if Sev had managed to get to London's Carnaby Street, or cross the pond to go to Woodstock that year, he would have encountered very different attitudes towards his outfit than what he experienced at home. :-)

[oryx_leucoryx]

BTW Harry and Tom do not have the same background. Tom and Severus are sons of witches and Muggles, Harry and probably Albus are sons of wizards from magical families and witches from Muggle families.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Interesting that you phrase it like that; it sort of brings out a weird contrast (I read raisingal's stuff, so that's probably influencing my take here too).

The two main characters most firmly aligned by the narrative voice and JKR with the 'side of light' are born to 'pure' wizarding males and technically-wizarding but less 'pure'/lower status females of clear Muggle background. Meanwhile the two main characters more clearly aligned with the 'side of darkness' (according again to JKR and the dominant voice of the text) are born to Muggle males (the lowest status, most 'impure' and least powerful males, absent at least from a world ordered by magic) and wizarding females who both, we are meant to suppose, were 'pure.'

Given that, in the Potterverse's dominant mindset, status and power are directly tied to one's magical strength, it rather looks as if the books set up a pattern in which having a dominant female parent is directly correlated with inclination to evil. Which is just...ick.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile the two main characters more clearly aligned with the 'side of darkness' (according again to JKR and the dominant voice of the text) are born to Muggle males (the lowest status, most 'impure' and least powerful males, absent at least from a world ordered by magic) and wizarding females who both, we are meant to suppose, were 'pure.'


Also, while both women were pure-bloods, both are presented in the narrative as having "given up" their magikal powers for the sake of love, or at the very least for the sake of fitting in with their Muggle partner's world -- and Rowling seems to suggest that doing so somehow means not only a weakening of their magikal powers, but a moral weakness as well.

While there is no such implication regarding Harry's or DD's parents; their pure-blood fathers aren't shown to have "given up" anything when they "married down", nor is any magikal/moral weakness shown or implied...

Given that, in the Potterverse's dominant mindset, status and power are directly tied to one's magical strength, it rather looks as if the books set up a pattern in which having a dominant female parent is directly correlated with inclination to evil. Which is just...ick.

Makes one wonder just what Rowling's real opinion of women is; something tells me she doesn't have many, if any, really close female friends whom she trusts. ;-)

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

While there is no such implication regarding Harry's or DD's parents; their pure-blood fathers aren't shown to have "given up" anything when they "married down", nor is any magikal/moral weakness shown or implied..

Exactly. In fact, the father of the most 'loving' and 'pure' champion of the light, the Christ-figure, is signified as 'good' and 'tolerant,' a champion of the light, precisely by his choice of bride (and ignore his rich-jock-boy picking on the poor halfblood, pay no attention to the bias behind the curtain).

Judging from her depiction of female characters among other things, I don't see a deeply-committed feminist here, whatever her public stance.

JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

Of course she's not a feminist. Just wait for the world cup chapter that Oryx Leucoryx will spork next. The veela show just how much of a misogynist JKR really is.

Re: JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Hell, just look at the female characters in general. None of them have any independent agency. Even Hermione, who's a member of an oppressed minority (though since JKR seems to think oppression consists solely of racial slurs and sending people to the camps it's unclear how much oppression she actually faces from anyone besides the DEs, but let's grant the text the benefit of the doubt for a while), fights against Voldemort primarily because she's friends with Harry - at no point save when they're trying to get Griphook to cooperate does she express any real Muggle-born solidarity (as far as I remember - if I'm wrong, please correct me). Feminism consists of more than calling psychopaths "bitch" before you kill them.

Re: JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

(and the munchkins come out and sing) Ding dong the bitch is dead!

Who wants to bet money that the movie theater will errupt into cheers when Molly kills Bellatrix?

Which I still say that bitch scream scene was written for the movie.

I know, totally off topic but really, the only juicy curse word we get is from the 'mom' character in the series.

Oh well wait Severus did say he didn't give a 'damn' about the peeves - but really who does give a damn about peeves.

Re: JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

People cheer in cinemas? Is that an American thing or have I just been going to the wrong (or right, depending on personal taste) cinemas?

Re: JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[xerox78.livejournal.com]

*gasp* Of course she's a feminist! She doesn't wear pearls to do housework! (I think she actually said something along those lines once.) And female-on-male violence is funny and empowering for women!

Re: JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[oryx_leucoryx]

She also wants her daughters to be like Hermione rather than Pansy.

Re: JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

She also wants her daughters to be like Hermione rather than Pansy.

She wants them to not be with her for holidays and vacations, to not even write/phone her, and to eventually obliviate her?

Re: JKR a feminist? That's a laugh

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

>>*gasp* Of course she's a feminist! She doesn't wear pearls to do housework! (I think she actually said something along those lines once.) And female-on-male violence is funny and empowering for women!<<

The latter point shows that JKR might possibly be a psychopath, but it doesn't show that she thinks highly of her own gender ;)

Also remember that bizarre gimmick in HBP with 'love potions' being used only by girls ... I do wonder what JKR could have meant by that.