Harry Potter and the Death Cult

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

So recently I was reading this (actually really excellent) Pokemon fanfic, which appears to have been an attempt to iron out a rather confusing Pokedex entry. Basically, the fanfic revolves around the idea that a certain species of Pokemon has a custom that all young male members of the community must kill their own mothers as a rite of passage. Anyone who can’t do it is disgraced and treated as vermin for the rest of his life- failure to kill your own mother is considered a sign of despicable cowardice. The more I thought about this fic, the more I realized that there’s a similar parallel in Harry Potter- except that instead of the message being, “If you’re truly a real man and worthy of belonging, you’ll kill your own family on instruction,” it’s “If you’re truly brave, a true Gryffindor, you’ll kill yourself on instruction.”
 
In Harry Potter we see characters committing ritual suicide on just about any pretext. We see people kill themselves to protect their family (Lily and James), to escape a bad boss (Regulus), as a strategic ploy (Dumbledore), and even to vanquish their enemies (Harry). Granted, it’s quite possible that these people were better off dead than otherwise, given the circumstances; but still, it does seem to be a pattern.
 
Consider the fate of Lily Potter nee Evans. She dies to protect her son, and in doing so, grants him special love protection. Now, it’s stressed again and again that Lily’s sacrifice was so noble and granted Harry the protection specifically because Voldemort offered her a choice about whether or not to live. And it was noble of her to die for her child- but it also established a pattern that the books’ attitudes towards death reinforce: if you’re in big enough trouble, trouble you can’t escape from any other way, die. Preferably as prettily and dramatically as you can manage.
 
Then there’s Regulus. There was another essay on here in which someone, I think it was Terri Testing, puts it out there that Regulus’s search for Slytherin’s locket was not to have the locket destroyed, but to, effectively, commit ritual suicide rather than serve Voldemort any longer. And for this the heroes emphatically reward him.
 
Now consider Peter Pettigrew. Peter Pettigrew is easily one of the most confusing characters Harry Potter ever gave us. He’s pretty much the only Gryffindor who’s never presented in a remotely positive light (at least not once his identity becomes known). The main reason given for this (both by the author and her fans) is that he’s a coward who betrayed Lily and James rather than be killed by Voldemort (granted, we don’t actually know how much of this is true, since the evidence of his cowardice is rather conflicting and since we never get his side of the story- just the main characters’ assumptions). Tellingly, when Sirius confronts him, he specifically goes out of his ways to say that, had Sirius been in his situation, he would have willingly died rather than betray his friends (the fact that Peter easily would have been better off dead than with Voldemort is largely beside the point here, since it’s only DE’s, and never anyone who could be counted among the “good guys” who serve Voldemort out of fear).
 
And then there’s Phineas Nigellus, who makes the statement about Slytherins choosing to save their own necks. This in and of itself is taken as reason to regard Slytherins as contemptible cravens- they won’t kill themselves for any greater good they can come up with (and you could argue that one of the downsides of “ambition” is that you’re motivated to stay around and wait for things to turn in your favor, rather than the Gryffindorish “bravery” of permanently ending your problems through death).
 
To return to the fanfic I read earlier, like most pieces of media dealing with death cults from the inside, the fanfic mostly just illustrates how things are done- it doesn’t take a stance on the morality of the characters’ actions, and the narrator is genuinely conflicted about killing someone he loves so much- but not enough to stop himself from doing it. What makes Harry Potter’s death cult so freaky is that it really does seem as though suicide is treated, not merely as a cornerstone of wizarding culture but *objectively good and righteous.* Throughout the series we meet literally no suicide bombers among the villains (despite the fact that the DE’s are terrorists, and terrorists in the modern world are notorious for suicide bombing). No, the only suicide bomber we meet (so to speak) is Harry Potter- who’s supposed to be the hero we’re meant to admire!
 
So, yeah.

Comments

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Every time I read all the things D2CLers post regarding the warped psychology of most of the characters and/or of various plot lines and backstories, I keep thinking to myself, "What does that say about the author?"

We've been fed this myth of Jo Rowling's life...a supposedly idyllic childhood until her sainted mother became ill and eventually died.

Except her mother didn't become ill until Joanne was in her teens and didn't die until Joanne was an adult...and within a few months of her mother's death her father married his secretary, at which time he and his daughter became estranged.

What little non-slavish-fan literature there is on Rowling's adult life shows that she was quite promiscuous, and that her behavior when she lived in Portugal was considered quite extreme by friends/coworkers.

IOW, Rowling seems to have quite a few psychological issues which she seems to refuse to acknowledge, let alone work on.

Her mother was supposed to be this long-suffering saint, yet Rowling treats mothers poorly in her books, indeed she treats all female characters rather poorly.

Fathers get short shrift, too, but that is rather more understandable, she hasn't made any claims that her own father is a saint.

But yes, she does seem to glamorize death, especially the death of parents. Freud would have a holiday psychoanalyzing THAT! lol

Not only are a goodly number of the parents of Harry and his classmates dead, but there are seemingly no, or at least very few, grandparents and greatgrandparents alive...strange for a society where living to be at least 100 is considered the norm. What happened to all the elders of wizarding society?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

shows that she was quite promiscuous,

Is this really symptomatic of anything?

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

I'll leave the possibility of it being symptomatic of anything of a psychological nature to the experts...

But I WILL say that it is symptomatic of someone who is at least a hypocrite, whose books present a rather puritanical world when it comes to sexuality, and who has espoused in interviews that it is the philosophy she believes in, but whose actual ACTIONS in her own life shows a completely different picture.

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

But I WILL say that it is symptomatic of someone who is at least a hypocrite, whose books present a rather puritanical world when it comes to sexuality, and who has espoused in interviews that it is the philosophy she believes in, but whose actual ACTIONS in her own life shows a completely different picture.

Because nobody else, ever, has slept around in their youth and maybe regretted it and then settled down to have a family later on. (Where does this info on JKR come from anyway? One of the British right-wing tabloids?)

This seems a pretty anti-feminist POV to me.

As for the conservative sexual morality in the books, these are, when all is said and done, children's books/young adult fiction. If I want a more adult approach to HP, I'll read the fanfic, thanks. Plenty of hot Snape fics around! :D

But it's worth noting that Ginny calls Ron out for his 'slut-shaming' language towards her in HBP. Believe me, it's rare for me to defend Ginny, because I don't like the character that much, but it is one of those rare occasions when the books take a genuinely feminist POV.

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

I completely agree with you about the creepiness and distastefulness of how early, violent death is glamorised in the series.
You could say it even goes to the point where the great evilness of Voldemort's character is hinged on the fact that he does not want to die.
In and of itself that surely isn't a controversial thing to wish for. Most mentally healthy people are at least a little afraid of dying and seek to put it off for as long as possible. But JK constructed her universe so that hanging on to life with Horcruxes went hand in hand with the evil act of murder.

There are other ways the evil of Horcruxes could have been portrayed. They could have been used to show that unnaturally extending your own life causes damage to and destruction of other lives, and ruins your own life and humanity as well.
But I get the impression that these things weren't as important in the end as the fact that Voldemort was just a mad old coward simply for wanting to avoid death. (Recall Harry's and Dumbledore's revulsion at the injured, whimpering fragment of Voldie's soul at Kings Cross.)

What little non-slavish-fan literature there is on Rowling's adult life shows that she was quite promiscuous, and that her behavior when she lived in Portugal was considered quite extreme by friends/coworkers.

I've been meaning to read a biography of Rowling, and I have to admit these hints of mental disturbance have piqued my interest. Can you recommend any non-slavish-fan articles/titles?

[oryx_leucoryx]

It is misleading to say Lily died to protect her son. Her dying ended up protecting her son, but since she realistically couldn't have foreseen this possibility (at least according to Rolwing) then saving her son wasn't the purpose of her dying, at least not in any rational sense.

Regarding Regulus, Terri proposed later that he may have committed suicide in order to destroy his Dark Mark because its existence was potentially endangering his parents who were hiding from Voldie in their protected house.

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Her dying ended up protecting her son, but since she realistically couldn't have foreseen this possibility

And I never understood how that ended up making her Saint Lily.
It was total happenstance.
I personally don't think it all that unlikely, that the conceited, self-righteous little braggart, we got to know in DH actually believed she and her baby might get away, just by her begging nicely enough.
Lily came off to me like a girl, who got her own way through her pretty looks and her charming vivaciousness all her life. She might have started to depend on it and the first time it didn't work out, she died.

But of course you're right: That whole thing did start a creepy trend (Or James did, since he died first) And Harry seems to be downright disturbed with his glorification of everybody dead.
Naming ALL his children after dead people, as one example of many.
Even Severus, who he hated and thought responsible for every bad thing that ever happened gets the dead = awesome treatment.
How sick is that?

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

And I never understood how that ended up making her Saint Lily.
It was total happenstance.

JKR herself shrugged off Lily's death by saying any mother would do that for her child. So much for St. Lily's Great Sacrifice.

I personally don't think it all that unlikely, that the conceited, self-righteous little braggart, we got to know in DH actually believed she and her baby might get away, just by her begging nicely enough.
Lily came off to me like a girl, who got her own way through her pretty looks and her charming vivaciousness all her life. She might have started to depend on it and the first time it didn't work out, she died.

I made this same point recently in one of the footnotes to an article I posted on Snapedom. I also suggested James may not have had his wand because he'd spent his whole life being rescued from the consequences of his own actions, so subconsciously he expected that to happen in this case, too.

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah. No wands. No emergency portkeys. No nothing.
They either had delusions of grandeur, were criminally stupid or wanted to die.
I couldn't believe James in the last book, I would have thought, 'You and what army will hold off Voldemort', even if he had been armed, but what he ended up doing was insane and not heroic to me.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/And I never understood how that ended up making her Saint Lily./

Exactly. So she sacrificed herself for her child. So did the German woman in DH. I don't see anybody singing her praises, though.

/It was total happenstance./

That's why I still don't understand how her sacrifice worked or why it was such a big deal. If Lily had fully known about the results of her sacrifice, if she had deliberately planned to destroy Voldemort that way and thus save her child, yes, then it would have made sense. But all that we see in HP leads to the conclusion that it was a gut reaction on her part. She didn't expect to destroy Voldemort. She was just trying to protect Harry, even though her death would mean that Voldemort would have one less obstacle to prevent him from killing Harry.

The whole reason why Harry survived and Voldemort died, the whole reason why Harry is called the Boy Who Lived and is treated as the Chosen One...and it was all because of an accident? I remember when Voldemort was ranting at Harry in DH about the accidents that had saved him by that point. Maybe he should have included Lily's sacrifice as an accident, too. Because as much as he reproaches himself in GoF about not remembering about the "ancient magic" that Lily's sacrifice triggered, it seems like Lily didn't know about it either.

[detritius.livejournal.com]

Back in the early books, I thought that Lily's sacrifice and the ancient magic it invoked would end up having something to do with the skill with Charms we were told she had. On a reread of POA, I came up with a theory that her saying stuff like "Kill me, not Harry" was somehow binding Voldemort to some kind of magical contract - and thus, when he killed her, it made it impossible for him to kill Harry because of Lily's charm/spell. Then it would make more sense that this had never happened before; Lily may not have been the first mother to die for her child, but she was the first that anyone knew of to combine that sacrifice with powerful ancient magic. The idea that there was any plan or strategy at all was really shot to hell by DH, though. I think showing that flashback and therefore destroying so many possible interpretations of what happened that night was one of the biggest mistakes Rowling made in DH, and that's saying something.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Throughout the series we meet literally no suicide bombers among the villains (despite the fact that the DE’s are terrorists, and terrorists in the modern world are notorious for suicide bombing).

However suicide bombing was less common among terrorists in the west before the mid-1990s or so. Suicide fighters in organized military forces were known, but the terrorists were more of the 'hit and run' type.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

You know, it occurs to me that the reason Western terrorists are not into suicide bombing is because they aren't convinced their deaths will get them 72 virgins in heaven. The Death Cheerleaders in DH were Harry's version of 72 virgins.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

You know, it occurs to me that the reason Western terrorists are not into suicide bombing is because they aren't convinced their deaths will get them 72 virgins in heaven. The Death Cheerleaders in DH were Harry's version of 72 virgins.

72 virgins is the lamest thing anyone could invent if you ask me. I always wondered why 72? Why not 100? or 1000? I mean if you're going to promise something, why stop at 72...but usually if you ask to many smartass dumb questions you end up on a hate list for crazy religious folks.

I remember seeing some comedian on television wondering why any dude would want 72 virgins anyway, he said something like he'd rather have 72 women that knew what they were doing. And I think I remember seeing Robin Williams on TV saying it was a mistake and it meant 72 Virginia's; which is cheesy but it made me giggle.

[sunnyskywalker]

Supposedly if you totally ignore context and various other technical things you could also translate it as 72 white raisins or something silly like that. All the holy books offer scope for ridiculous translations. Fun times!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - this is actually a bit offensive. The first suicide "bombers" I ever heard of were Kamikaze pilots, and I've no idea what motivated them (extreme patriotism, I believe), but it certainly wasn't 72 virgins. The next suicide bombers - often women - were Sri Lankan. Muslims did not take up this method until the 1990s.

It's a horrible, horrible, thing, of course, but, from what I've read and seen (films, news reports, etc), young people are motivated to take it up from a toxic combination of rage, powerlessness, and absolute despair.

Which - to get back to our actual topic - does fit Harry's mindset pretty darn well.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Sorry I'm confused? what part is offensive?

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

It's a romantic notion, the idea of dieing for someone else. For a mother/parent I'd think it would be more of an instinct.

Technically yea, it's noble but really I think a majority of parents would protect they're children first in a life or death situation.

And Harry's death is proclaimed to be the greatest ever because he died for everyone. (Oy, it's mini-Jesus).

But didn't everyone on the good side who fought in the Battle of Hogwarts potentially put themselves up to die for everyone? Why is Harry's any more noble just because he walked into it like a lamb for slaughter? Remus and Tonks death just sort of hide there under this rock of discarded secondary characters.

Is Harry's death any more noble because he took it like a man and walked right into it with no fight?

Well hell, what about Snape - he's been walking into Voldemort's lair since book 4 - in fact he walked into it at the end of book 4 and could have potentially been killed right then and there. He went on a limb since he turned from Voldemorts side. But fans and even JKR seem to dismiss his actions as being totally selfish because he was doing it just because he loved Lily.

So how is Snape different from Lily? She died for her child, a person she loved more than life. Snape seemly died for a love he felt that was never returned.

To me Snape's death seems to be out of everyone even more noble than saint Lily - due to him 1-not being related and 2-fighting his own nature to change and become more than he was.

His death just seems to get second fiddle because he was supposedly selfish about it. Hell, in a certain way most of the men's death seem second fiddle. Remus, Lupin and even James. The only reason given is well...Lily had a choice. But didn't they all have a choice to walk away at any damn time? I don't see how Lily's was any more special than James - he could have easily walked out and ran away when Lily got pregnant, but he stayed.

It just seems nice that JKR can pick her deaths in the series and suggest certain ones mean more than others....but it just seems sad that certain deaths are given more importance (Lily's/Harry's).

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

It just seems nice that JKR can pick her deaths in the series and suggest certain ones mean more than others....but it just seems sad that certain deaths are given more importance (Lily's/Harry's).

And don't forget that German woman who pushed her kids behind her just as Voldemort sent an AK at them. Apparently German mothers love their children less than British mothers. Maybe adrenalin affects the brain sufficiently to impair judgement just enough to negate any sort of implicit "my life for theirs contract", which would explain James' protective love and the love of all who died in battle doing bugger-all, but then we're back to the problem of Snape.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I forgot Merope. A nasty little rapist who nonetheless loved her child enough to drag her dying body through an unfamiliar city in the dead of winter to an orphanage, and held on just long enough to give birth, name the kid and explain where the names came from - but in this case dying is a sign of weakness, just like Lord Voldemort always said it was. What the hell?

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I agree with your overall sentiment, but in fairness to Merope we have only Dumbledore's assumption that she raped Riddle. Because she wasn't pretty enough, 'obviously,' to have actually held his interest. Nevermind the time-honored tradition of the lords of the manor expecting to have their way with anyone on their domain without consequence. That she's not attractive might have made her seem the perfect target - he could rape her, or even pretend to her that he really loves her, and then split when she got pregnant/he got bored and nobody would be inclined to believe her tale. Because 'obviously' who would want to sleep with her?

We don't know what actually happened between them, is my point. Anything could have gone down. And assuming that because she was ugly she necessarily raped Riddle is a variant of a very old, very misogynistic trope. It makes me ragey when Dumbledore plays it, and I really hate to see it being taken up without question, especially given the suspicion of Dumbledore generally expressed here. I'm not trying to attack you, sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just trying to point out the problem of assuming Dumbledore's correct in his assumptions.

But word on the flip-flop regarding death as weakness.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I think that was when HP lost me. I hate the trope of a woman being too selfish to live for her children. All I could imagine was being cold, and hungry and tired and pregnant and abandoned and in a time where an abandoned woman with child was a slut and should be shamed. Let's not forget that just across the sea in Ireland, women could be put in a workhouse prison for the crime of fornication. She has no life skills, no family and no medical care.

Yet she dragged her dying self to a place where her baby could be safe. May I be granted that courage in the face of adversity in life.

"Merope chose death in spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering and she never had your mother's courage"

Up yours, you evil mansplainer. Merope had more courage and strength than you could possibly imagine. I'd love to see Lily deal with being poor, abandoned, shamed and desperately ill, and see how much courage she'd have.

That is just vicious. An actress I very much admired, Michal Friedman died from complications from childbirth. She was a strong amazing woman and I imagine she fought like hell to live. Unfortunately, we are mortal.

I understand losing a mother is traumatic, but people suffering from illnesses often want to live very badly, and blaming them for dying is blaming the victim in the most pure sense possible.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

What you are calling suicide, others would call martyrdom. Sacrificing oneself for a cause is currently rather out of fashion in the West, but that is a pretty recent development, I think. Historically, martyring oneself was often considered an acceptable, honorable, way to die, and many people still believe this today.

I think that the attitudes about martyrdom in the HP books are probably mostly a reflection of Rowling's religious beliefs and the influence of older literary traditions. I find them much less disturbing than some other aspects of the books.

[sunnyskywalker]

Dying for a cause when there's no other option and you really think it will help further a goal that's really that important, like saving lots of lives, is one thing (which we still have in a lot of stories - think of all the gruff military leaders in the movies who tell the men to go on, he'll cover for them...). But I think you're right, the HP books do seem to have a slightly different, older style of martyrdom where it's noble to die even if it won't particularly do any good as far as you know (Regulus being the prime example here).

What I want to know is, if this is the case, then why isn't Merope dying so Tom could grow up with people who are not Gaunts also a noble sacrifice? Clearly Dumbledore doesn't think Merope would be a fit parent, so shouldn't choosing to give Tom up to hopefully-better people and taking herself out of the equation be a sign that she's placing her baby's welfare above her own? If he's assuming she meant to die, why doesn't he assume that was the motive? Because motherhood instantly transforms you and he thought she would have suddenly become the best caretaker for little Tom? It just seems like Merope can't win alive or dead. If she had lived to raise Tom and he still turned out bad, as seems likely since he was apparently "funny" since birth, would Dumbledore not have blamed Merope?

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

I don't doubt that there are ways in which accepting death can be noble, either to save someone else or to hold onto a core belief that you'd otherwise have to give up. But Harry Potter takes it way too far- everyone who commits suicide for any reason is presented as heroic (if they're good) or irredeemable (if they're evil) and almost nobody tries to find a way to solve problems that doesn't involve someone's death.