Let's Read Tales Of Beedle The Bard: Part Three: The Warlock's Hairy Heart.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Because I'm having horrible writer's block regarding a Matthew Stover poem, I've decided to update my Tales of Beedle The Bard recaps! :D

Kyoshi Warrior gear, don't fail me now...



Summary Of The Story: Guy doesn't want to fall in love -- because he kind of thinks that falling in love is for pussies. :P -- so he seals his heart away in a distant room. Fair maiden arrives to help him out. Guy's hairy heart (?!) causes him to start falling in lust or something (?!?!?!?!), so he kills the maiden and then himself. Reader is left to mop up the chunks of brain that have shot out her nose. :P

Dumbledore's Commentary: Nothing too offensive so far...mostly seems that Dumbledore's commenting on how disturbing the tale is, and an anecdote of Beatrix Bloxam being traumatized by the story as a kid, which pretty much started off her...crusade, so to speak (and even though I know I'm not supposed to like her, that story just makes me smile, because it's one of those rare instances real life seems to seep in. *Pets her and gives her warm milk* :) Which sums up most of Rowling's so-called "unlikeable" characters, IMHO). Preaching on about "the power of love", blah blah blah...look, Dumbles, if it weren't for the way the Power of Love was presented in the books, I'd probably find your interpretation pretty credible.

Ironically, it's one of those moments when I welcome the commentary, if only because the story was really, really confusing. Which absolutely kills me.


Dumbles Rage-O-Meter: 5. In tolerable range. And if *that's* normal range...yeah, be very afraid. :P








So yeah...this is probably the point THE TALES OF BEEDLE THE BARD starts to go a little wacky. Be very afraid. :P

Comments

[https://me.yahoo.com/a/gNLVidA.xeLuPiOU_2B_USM.HYNFjA--#b0b6b (from livejournal.com)]

I'm going to go a bit ballistic over this one, because I personally find this story really, really, REALLY offensive!

1. Not being interested in marriage <==> TEH DARK MAGIX.
It's not like a person might have different social needs, or different wishes for how to spend their life.
It's not like shyness or trauma are possible reasons for which a person might wish to avoid "love".
No, no, only the most terrible, the most vile, the most non-heteronormative EVIL could make a person not want to get married.

2. As someone above said: the implication is that anyone who is asexual or anyone who chooses to be celibate is not simply acting on their nature or on a rational choice. They MUST be horribly repressed! And that means they're going to turn into rapists and paedophiles and all kinds of horrible sexual deviants! ZOMG!

3. Then Dumbledore gets preachy about the supposed moral of this story, and this is the most egregious part of all.
Where are Dumbledore's wife and kids? Why has he apparently been alone and loveless all these years? What does that say about the state of HIS heart?

I know a lot has already been said about JK's homophobic ideas in that post-DH interview where she reveals that Dumbledore is gay, but I really think this story goes just that bit further and machine-guns any intended "plea for tolerance" to shreds.

P.S. The Warlock's Harry Heart ... that makes brilliant sense! So this is what the infamous chest monster looks like.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

You said it better than I ever could! (With much fewer vulgarisms than I would have used, at any rate. :p) Rowling's promotion of marriage as the only acceptable way to live seriously turns my stomach. You'd think a divorcee like herself would be a little more open minded about these thing... but no. :(

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

THIS. :D

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Not to worry, my friend; I quite agree. It's mostly peeling back the Fridge Horror/Unfortunate Implications of this story that I'm starting to realize this.

Regarding number one...this, just this. In fact, come to think of it, one aspect of Dumbledore's character really bugs me: not only regarding the whole "gay love leads to the Dark Side" thing that post-DH interview may have accidentally presented, but...has JKR ever really gone into Dumbledore's past? If he was honestly sorry for his decisions regarding Ariana, et cetera, he would have been actively working against Tom and trying to help him during his Hogwarts days instead of, basically, aiding him in becoming Voldemort via his own stupidity/genius. He would have seen an image of himself reflected in Tom, tried to prevent it...and when Tom fell, to Dumbledore, it would have been a genuine surprise and a shame. Plus, some of Dumbledore's issues regarding Grindelwald would rub off on Tom as well...Dumbledore actually having a love/hate relationship with Tom because Tom reminds him of his old lover. *Adds to personal canon*

2. Except if they're Dumbledore, of course. :P (You know the "he hasn't had any sex since Grindelwald" line?) I *could* use that logic to point out another reason why Dumbledore may act the way he does...but I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole. :/

3. That he's extremely bitter, really. In fact, Dumbledore may be one of the most bitter mentors in fantasy -- you know, if JKR had acknowledged it and run with it, you could have ended up with a highly memorable Villainous Mentor. Forget Tom -- he's mostly a General Grievous-esque sideshow. The real villain happens to be the lemon-drop eating headmaster sworn to protect the Chosen One -- but he's not, of course.

That scenario is far scarier than a Hitler-wannabe who owns a pet snake, IMHO.


4. And yeah, kind of hard to argue the "plea for tolerance" thing against evidence like that. :/


5. Or the dragon from Matthew Stover's ROTS novelization... *Is far too obsessed with that book. ;-)* But your interpretation is definitely superior. :3

[oryx_leucoryx]

3. That he's extremely bitter, really. In fact, Dumbledore may be one of the most bitter mentors in fantasy -- you know, if JKR had acknowledged it and run with it, you could have ended up with a highly memorable Villainous Mentor. Forget Tom -- he's mostly a General Grievous-esque sideshow. The real villain happens to be the lemon-drop eating headmaster sworn to protect the Chosen One -- but he's not, of course.


Reminded me of Why Gandalf Never Married - 1985 talk by Terry Pratchett. It was actually about the difference between the way wizards and witches are portrayed in fantasy, but one of the common trait of classical wizards is that they don't need women and if they do get involved with one they are doomed (Merlin and Nimue).

Anyway, wizards can be normatively celibate if they are like priests and monks (or like the Jedi in the prequels), rare individuals called or fated or chosen for their role, within a broader sexually reproducing society. But the moment Rowling created a secluded society of magic-workers she needs to have reproducing wizards (at least most of them). So now she has a conflict between the classical image of celibate wizard and a wizard who is a regular Joe.

(Of course the secluded world also breaks the whole aspect of person with unusual abilities putting them at the service of greater society, as in the first story.)

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link to the Pratchett talk!! It's excellent!

The classical witch, on the other hand, with her often malevolent interest in the small beer of human affairs, is everything we fear only too well that we would in fact become. ... the witches will perform their evil, bad-tempered spells.

Like Merope Gaunt. Can't let the women have magic!

In his discourse about witches with warts and bad magic Pratchett conveniently omitted to cover Glinda the Good Witch of the ... North? From the Oz books.

Maybe Narnia's White Witch cancelled her out.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think in the books there were two good witches, one nice old lady witch from the North, and Glinda from the South. But it's been a while. Still. There were two good witches to balance the two bad ones, I remember that much! And while Galadriel isn't technically a witch... she has a magic mirror, and I think falls into the Good Witch tradition. Like the Oz good witches, she doesn't get to be a hands-on mentor going on the quest with the heroes, but she is in a mentorly role, plus noble and powerful (magically and politically), so there is some resemblance to the traditional wizard role. Except she's married. But overall, yeah, I think the pattern of noble awesome wizard/petty evil witch is the more prevalent one.

One thing that puzzles me in that Pratchett piece is that he concludes that the fictional wizard is what we'd want to be and the fictional witch is what we're afraid to be - and that therefore "The sex of the magic practitioner doesn't really enter into it." Did we flip a coin? Why don't we have the lady wizard we want to be and the grubby man-witch we're afraid to be as standard tropes? I don't know the answer, but I don't think we need to rule gender out as a possible factor just because we found another possible factor; they aren't mutually exclusive. The few historical "wizards" I know about, like John Dee, worked for royalty - he advised Elizabeth I about astrology, among other things. So it isn't like there wasn't a real(ish) precedent for the fictional discrepancy. He even has a white beard according to his portrait.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

All of your points are spot-on. While reading the story, I couldn't help but wonder if the warlock was supposed to be a stand-in for Voldemort. Think about it, Voldemort never marries or has kids and he's apparently not interested in any form of love, either. He also tries to lock parts of his soul ("heart") away in physical objects, which turn him into a monster.

To be fair, though, I think that the main point of the story was that the warlock was incapable of *any* sort of love, not just the romantic kind.

But then again, like you said, *Dumbledore* never gets married, either. And he's the same guy who tells Harry that his desire for revenge shows how loving he is. So...maybe he's not the most qualified person to provide commentary here.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Very true. :)

[https://me.yahoo.com/a/gNLVidA.xeLuPiOU_2B_USM.HYNFjA--#b0b6b (from livejournal.com)]

Yeah, the Voldemort correlation is definitely there.
You're probably right that the warlock was incapable of any type of love, but if that's so then the story is basically demonising him for having a disability. It's not as if he started out doing anything particularly evil before the "DARK WIZARD" label was slapped onto him.
This is also one of the things that disappointed me the most in the Harry Potter books - Voldemort's evilness was nothing more than a consequence of how he was born. It's rather sickening.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

*This*! Seriously, Voldemort's backstory pissed me off to no end. >:(

[sunnyskywalker]

You know, since at the time probably even wizards hadn't figured out about germs yet, women dying in childbirth would still be common for them, and a wizard might rationally decide not to play Russian Roulette with someone's life like that. And figure the kids would die of plague even if they lived. So he would instead devote his life to study and close friendships, or at least romance with non-reproductive sex, and live happily ever after.

I think this story works very well as an old fairy tale, in that some of them do have horrible implications. It would make sense for an old story to be all, "Not marrying means there's something wrong with you! You must have cut out your heart!" (You still see plenty of that attitude even today...) A good commentary would point this out. Dumbledore not doing this is actually a very good way of revealing his issues, so if by some chance JKR actually meant it to show how screwed up some old fairy tale morals were, and how screwed up Dumbledore is, it actually works pretty well!

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

It always comes back to this. Is JKR aware of how screwed up Dumbledore is?

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately no. And therein lies the problem. :/

[sunnyskywalker]

Does that make this a meta-horror story, where the commentary on the original horror story hints at another horror story concerning the commenter? I think we can read it that way, even if JKR didn't plan it.

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

1. Not being interested in marriage <==> TEH DARK MAGIX.

Very true. JKR loves her characters so much that, to save them from the Dark Side, she married them all as soon as they finished Hogwarts. /sarcasm
Even the ones we don't see married in the (shudder) Epilogue are paired off in interviews.
The only one not married and producing kids is Charlie Weasley. He will probably be the new Dark Lord with a pet Dragon. XD

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

XD

That would kick so much ass! He wouldn't idly settle into the desired Weasley life; he and his dragon would roam the world kicking ass, taking names, and uprooting society hippie-style. *Fuck*, man! :D

But on a darker note...yeah. JKR has...weird views regarding love and marriage. :/

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

(LOL!)

Yea, sadly the epilogue reads more like a Romance Novel ending, it didn't really even feel like a fairy tale ending to me.

It's more like those juicy novels you read just for the sex, except there is no sex. Basicly the epilogue puts for that all the characters screwed, got married and had kids. (Although maybe in this stories case it was marriage first, whatever).

We just got to read 19 years later life is pretty damn borning and Harry is now 3 kids deep and in domestic bliss with Ginny.

I'm guessing the 19 years of domestic bliss and the sex was pretty lame to, thats probably why it got skipped over.

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

We should be thankful she hadn't written a "How X and Y got together / married." collection of short stories with every pair having one storie. *shudder*

And can you imagine JKR writing a sex scene? It would probably be so horrible we would all die from laughter. XD

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

1. Not being interested in marriage <==> TEH DARK MAGIX.
It's not like a person might have different social needs, or different wishes for how to spend their life.
It's not like shyness or trauma are possible reasons for which a person might wish to avoid "love".
No, no, only the most terrible, the most vile, the most non-heteronormative EVIL could make a person not want to get married.

2. As someone above said: the implication is that anyone who is asexual or anyone who chooses to be celibate is not simply acting on their nature or on a rational choice. They MUST be horribly repressed! And that means they're going to turn into rapists and paedophiles and all kinds of horrible sexual deviants! ZOMG!

Not to mention the implication that romantic love is the only kind of love that matters. Filial, sibling, and parental love aren't even mentioned. And forget about religious devotion, or a disinterested love for humanity in general, nonhuman animals, or nature. Nope, only heterosexual romantic love that ends in marriage, preferably with reproduction involved, is "real" love.

[sunnyskywalker]

Well, there's Lily's Magic Mother Love, but that only matters for a very limited purpose for a limited time and possibly only because a prophecy helped it along. And no one else's mothers' love really matters. And of course Snape couldn't have been motivated by a deep and abiding friendship for Lily, oh no, had to be a crush, and no one gets to fight because of principles.

[oryx_leucoryx]

I think Narcissa's maternal love matters a bit. And Regulus/Kreacher's familial love.

[sunnyskywalker]

Right, DH stuff :D I wonder why paternal love isn't a big deal? I mean, Harry gets that Patronus protection mojo and the cloak from James, except the Patronus thing turns out to be himself, but the closest thing we have to a dad's love mattering might be Crouch Sr., which is... not the best example of love. Or maybe Dumbledore's dad, though that's more of the Harry brand of revenge = love.

But this poor warlock gets none of those options. Couldn't he have made friends with any of his scholarly correspondents, assuming he had them (and it seemed to be the thing to do)? Did he not have any siblings or cousins or childhood friends? He can't even get a Trio-style or Marauders-style "friendship" (which don't seem much like real or healthy friendships to me in many ways, but they're close enough I guess).

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Actually, there are a couple of references to the love between parents and children in this story, too. The warlock feels smugly superior to his peers with children, confident that they can't really be happier for having children. Slightly later, we hear that the warlock's own parents die, and he just feels glad to have their castle and money for himself.

What's sad is that romantic love is given so much more importance that the warlock's utter lack of feeling for his parents gets one line, and the plot of the story centers on fact that he ends up killing a woman he never cared about and who never cared about him, but was encouraged to accept him by her family. A woman who, in fact, he only courted because his pride stung after he heard his servants gossiping that he *couldn't* attract a wife, and well, she seemed like the candidate most "worthy" of him.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

"1. Not being interested in marriage <==> TEH DARK MAGIX."

Upon further consideration, I think that the big problem with this story is that we're not given any context for WHY the wizard doesn't want to get married. If he was some sort of tortured individual, say, who wanted to prevent himself from hurting because of something that had happened to him in the past, that would have made the story more tragic and interesting and negated the idea that wife+kids+white picket fence is the only way to be. But this is Rowling, after all, who apparently believes that Freudian Excuses are badges of shame left only to pathetic losers, so....

You could argue that it doesn't make sense to try to apply this kind of moral reasoning to a children's fable, but that doesn't stop adults from reading and commenting on it anyway.