Harry Potter and the Death Cult
Dec. 2nd, 2011 01:45 pmSo 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 09:42 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 10:16 pm (UTC)And I still have no idea why Dumbledore thinks she chose to die. Mrs. Cole surely would have mentioned if Merope died for no apparent reason, so it probably looked like a normal fatal childbirth. Could your average witch on the street stop herself from hemorrhaging while, you know, hemorrhaging and starving and not being good at doing magic under pressure in the first place? That has nothing to do with courage. In the "didn't try to save herself" contest, Lily seems more culpable to me; you'd think having emergency Portkeys to different places all around the house just in case would be a gimme, and she had the time, talent, and energy to set that up, but was there a Portkey in the nursery, or in a pouch around her neck?
I wonder if this is some weird unconscious reaction to her own mother's death. I'm sure if you asked her, she knows that her mother couldn't have helped dying of a fatal condition, but feeling abandoned anyway is a common human reaction. I don't know what Dumbledore's excuse is, though. Unless he's deliberately picking the interpretation he thinks Harry should hear for some reason.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 10:38 pm (UTC)Come to think of it, there are a lot of instances in the Potterverse of parents dying for or because of their children. The rate is much higher than in the normal, modern-day population of a developed country. I wonder if JKR feels some weird, subconscious guilt about her mother's death?
no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 11:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 11:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 04:21 am (UTC)And seriously, she had no prenatal care. Womens bodies can be hurt during pregnancy, the calcium leached from her bones. Being abused, she may have been afraid to go for help. Being the 30s, she may have been ashamed or have no to help her. And then she likely is hemorrhaging and may have tried to turn her wand on herself, but have no strength to do it.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 04:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 03:14 am (UTC)The whole thing with Merope really makes me wonder what HBP would have been like if we got Voldemort's backstory through a series of more objective flashbacks (Lost-style, if you will) rather than having it all come through the Dumbeldore filter. Of course, that's assuming JK has any ability to be objective about her characters in the first place, which probably would have made for an entirely different series anyway.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-12-04 11:15 pm (UTC)What makes this whole Dumbledore-explains-Voldy/Merope deal even worse is the fact that Dumbledore villifies Merope in such a way that it makes Voldy look sympathetic to Harry and then he turns around and tells Harry that he still shouldn't feel sorry for Voldemort after all! It's like he's deliberately trying to stamp out Harry's compassionate impulses by villifying everyone Harry isn't supposed to like (and ironically, every character Rowling doesn't like gets the exact same treatment in her interviews).
Honestly, the more I look at Harry Potter discussions by Rowling and others like her the more I feel as though I'm reading a fanbrat's post about how you shouldn't bother with a backstory for villains who don't get one in canon because they're too evil to deserve to possibly be seen from a sympathetic viewpoint.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 12:33 am (UTC)Word. That's one of the things that creeps me out most about these books and Dumbledore in particular. Despite the surface message of tolerance blah blah blah, both books and Dumbles are actually quite hard-hearted and militate against showing true compassion. The bit in Ghostly King's Cross where Dumbles *again* tells Harry not to bother feeling moved by the screaming baby or try to do anything to help just made me go ICK ICK ICK WTF? the moment I read it. Not to mention the bit where he tells Harry that wanting to kill someone out of a desire for revenge is a sign of his True Pure Lovingness. I mean, WTFIDEKBBQ???
no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 01:47 am (UTC)Well, sure he is! Harry won't be willing to see the bad guys as pure evil who need to be ruthlessly stamped out otherwise. Besides, DD is a psychopath, so he doesn't have any compassionate impulses to stamp out. As for Rowling, don't forget DD is one of her self-inserts (not that she's a psychopath, just very messed up), so whatever DD says comes straight from on high.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 04:16 am (UTC)DOn't get me started on how Harry and JKR view Percy, whose only mistake was not worshipping Harry and not wanting to be poor.
No one feels sorry for a kid who is bullied, because he deserves it.
And Voldie, born of rape and a selfish mother, he can't have sympathy.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 03:21 pm (UTC)That's right. As soon as Harry asks why Merope couldn't stay alive for her son (a question which is both critical of Merope and sympathetic toward Tom), Dumbledore raises his eyebrows and asks, "Are you possibly feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?"
You know, just in case Harry forgot that Tom Riddle grew up to be Lord Voldemort. But it seems to me that Dumbledore was trying to make Harry forget that Lord Voldemort was once a little boy named Tom Riddle. You know, Albus, Harry's not going become a Voldemort fanboy any time soon just because he spends ten seconds feeling sorry for him. You can feel sorry for the person that somebody once was and not condone their present actions.
But this just goes back to the whole black/white moral dichotomy that Harry and Dumbledore have. If you feel sorry for someone, you're automatically on their side, no matter what the circumstances. Harry only feels the "tiniest drops of pity" for Draco at the end of HBP, because if he had actually stopped to think and empathize with Draco, he'd be a Death Eater-sympathizer/Slytherin-lover/on the Dark Side/etc.
/I feel as though I'm reading a fanbrat's post about how you shouldn't bother with a backstory for villains who don't get one in canon because they're too evil to deserve to possibly be seen from a sympathetic viewpoint./
Oh, yes, you don't know how many tiresome posts I've read where fans complained that their fandom's villain getting a sympathetic back-story or becoming more emotionally complex made them "soft" and "cliched" and "wimpy." Yeah, because nothing says original like a bad guy who is Evil solely to be Evil and if a bad guy actually starts to look human, he automatically becomes "wimpy." It's more important for a villain to be tough and edgy with zero personality and motivation than to be even the tiniest bit sympathetic. *rolls eyes*
I mean, even in this fandom, when Draco got actual conflict and struggle in HBP, there were fans out there who complained that this Draco was "OOC" and "wimpy." Oh, yes, he's so much worse than the basic cardboard-cut out of a bully that we got in 1-5 who only exists to antagonize Harry. Draco having motivations and goals that have nothing to do with Harry and being actually stressed-out about them and not being sneering or swaggering for once? Blasphemy!
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 10:52 pm (UTC)Tell me about it. The Pokemon fandom has this too and it's so, so irritating! In the first generation of games, the villain was a fairly run-of-the-mill mob boss who had a high position in society while covertly performing illegal acts to increase his fortune and killing Pokemon for no clear reason. Generation Four gave us a very different villain- he was a broken man who was driven insane by his abusive, loveless parents and sometime later decided that it was in the world's best interest to destroy it and rebuild it again without any emotions so that there could be no conflict. Guess which villain is treated as an angsty emo loser and which is treated as the most badass and awesome thing ever to happen to the franchise?
And don't get me started on how they treat the anti-villain antagonist in Generation Five!
no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 12:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 04:08 am (UTC)I really loved it in Warriors when we got more of arch-villain Tigerclaw's backstory in Bluestar's Prophecy. We found out that his father, the clan leader, got tired of being in charge and left the clan to become a (gasp!) kittypet (domestic pet cat)! So dad not only abandoned his family, clan, and duties, he did it in a way that was particularly shaming for his little son. Although it's never been stated outright, after reading that, I was able to imagine how Tigerclaw could have developed an obsession with becoming a Super Badass Clan Cat to overcompensate for the shame his father had brought on the family. Combine that with his naturally brash personality and a mentor (surrogate parent/trainer) who was hyper-aggressive and encouraged the worst aspects of Tigerclaw's personality, and it's easy to see how he developed into the ruthless tyrant he became.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 07:05 am (UTC)Oh yes, Merope chose to die because she was a coward who didn't care about her son. Not because she was starving and therefore malnourished. Not because she was homeless and therefore exposed to the elements. Not because she was already sick as a dog. Not because it was the early 20th century, when even perfectly healthy, happy women routinely died in childbirth. Nope! Merope died out of pure selfishness. I'm sure if she'd had the charmed life Lily had, she would have had the same "courage".
And JKR calls herself a "feminist". *snort*
no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 05:45 pm (UTC)And seriously, women today die in childbirth. My sister in law nearly died, my friend nearly died and my grandmother was within inches of her life with my father. Without antibiotics, I doubt any of them would have survived.
It's not just anti-feminist, it's classist.
Middle class Lily was courageous.
Wizard Trailer trash are cowards.
My grandmother, who survived Auschwitz said one thing. "When you're that hungry, you're not you."
Words to think about.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 06:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 02:27 am (UTC)That's what made Dumbledore's words so flabbergasting. Putting aside the feminist rage at the moment, it's just mind-boggling. We'd clearly been told Merope's circumstances: she'd been poor and starving and sick and all alone. Anybody would think that death in childbirth would be inevitable or at the very least, extremely likely. Yet Dumbledore turns the scenario on its head and suggests that she *chose* to die? Who on earth would think that a woman *chose* to die in a situation like that?
On a side-note, it reminds me of the similarly baffling and infuriating scene of Padme's death in "Revenge of the Sith." No, you can't just say that she died as a result of Anakin Force-choking her. No, you have to have the medi-droid say that she's "physically fine," thus canceling that excuse, and that the only reason that she's dying is because she "lost the will to live." In other words, she's *choosing* to give up and die. Only in that case, we were supposed to pity her, not scorn her as we're expected to do with Merope.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 07:01 pm (UTC)Iirc, in an earlier draft of RotS, the med droid said, "We can find no cause for this total systemic failure." This left the interpretation much more open. Maybe she lost the will to live, maybe the intercut shots of her and Vader going in the suit meant he was somehow reaching out through the Force and draining her life to support himself, maybe the droids were just poorly programmed. It's still a bit silly - what Vader did surely could have been sufficient, and Padme apparently got no prenatal care (otherwise she would have known she was carrying twins) and so could have had any number of fatal medical complications - but it's better than what we got.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-12-05 07:07 pm (UTC)Ever.
And if they do, than maybe Filch should be allowed to use his toys from the dungeons on them.
That was such a misogynistic clusterfuck of a conversation, I don't even know were to start. It's just that offensive.
But word on everything that got covered so far.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 04:16 am (UTC)It's not cowardice to suffer from depression. As JKR was a poor single mother on welfare herself to suffered from depression, I'm quite shocked at it.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 05:52 pm (UTC)/sarcasm
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: