Harry Potter and Narcissism

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

So, a lot of people here seem to think that Harry Potter and his friends are narcissists. That's interesting because I was looking up narcissist behaviors for a villain in one of my own stories and I realized that Harry fits the "vulnerable-narcissist" pathology to a T.



So on this psychology blog there was a description of two types of narcissists: vulnerable narcissists and grandiose narcissists. The distinction lies in that vulnerable narcissists are obsessed with overcompensating for deeply-rooted inferiority complexes (possibly stemming from abuse in many cases), which leads to them getting defensive and angry whenever they're not treated like royalty, and being paranoid that people are about to turn against them (and thus obsessed with preventing that from happening). GEE, DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?

On the other hand, grandiose narcissists have higher self-esteem, and tend to be more aggressive and obsessed with showing everyone how fantastic they are. They're also likely to ditch people who don't treat them like royalty on the grounds that they're "not good enough," not really caring how they think of them. The blog goes on to posit that such narcissists might have been spoiled from a young age. So Harry's parents could be grandiose narcissists.

An archetypal vulnerable narcissist is as follows:

"John, a truck driver, is a vulnerable narcissist. He prides himself on his technical abilities to deal with any problem situation. He has a good reputation at work for his skills, but others are offended by his arrogance. They try to avoid him and put him down behind his back.

He marries Sandy, who has an administrative job. He feels easily threatened by Sandy's success and independence. But Sandy is quite codependent and spends a lot of effort "fixing" him, helping him feel great about himself. He complains to her about how people mistreat him at work and don't appreciate how special he is. He talks a lot about quitting his job and working with people who appreciate him. But he never does.

He also complains that his friends "turn against" him when they seem to avoid him or have other priorities. He blames Sandy when things go wrong around the house while he's on the road, and she has learned not to argue back. When Sandy gets a raise at work, John insults her and claims she must be sleeping with her boss. He demands that he determine how they spend their increased pay. Sandy sometimes hints about divorcing him, but he says he would kill himself if she did--so she doesn't."

While an archetypal grandiose narcissist is more like this:

"Fred is a physician. He met Sharon at work, who is a nurse. He divorced his first wife (who helped put him through medical school) and married Sharon, an attractive "trophy wife." Their relationship revolves around hiscareer.

He routinely belittles Sharon behind the scenes and occasionally slaps her for acting "stupid." He doesn't want her to work, so she gives up her career to raise several children. Fred, in the meantime, has several short affairs with other secretaries and nurses, which he doesn't hide. He gets furious with Sharon when this upsets her.

When the children get older, she wants to return to work. But he belittles her abilities, so she devotes herself to volunteer work related to the children's activities.Then Sharon gets cancer and Fred gets the best treatment for her. But while she is in the hospital, he also develops a more substantial relationship with another nurse at work. When she finds out, she is crushed--not only about the affair, but his inability to emotionally support her."

If you read the rest of the blog, I think you'll find that a lot of the traits they describe to be reminiscent of the behavior of several Harry Potter characters.

Comments

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

...*applause*

So, does this make Dumbledore the grandiose subtype masquerading as the vulnerable subtype?

And this is exactly why I despise OOTP-and-after!Harry - I know someone in real life who fits the "vulnerable narcissist" descriptor perfectly, and Harry's behavior matches up very closely to his.

More comments later...

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Wow! That surely does fit Harry, quite exactly, whereas the arrogant narcissist type fits both Dumbledore and Voldemort. But these books are loaded with narcissism. Insofar as Snape and Harry resemble each other (not all that much, after DH, IMHO), one could claim that Sev was also a vulnerable narcissist*, and I think Ron has some of the traits, as well. James and Lily both seem to be the arrogant narcissistic type; Petunia is more vulnerable, oddly enough. Dudley, by this reckoning, should have turned out an arrogant narcissist, but I'm not sure he did. He's really not enough of a character to tell.

It's certainly true, though, that these books are full of narcissism. It's creepy, really.

*I don't think this is true, but I can see how one could argue it. To me, Severus is very clearly a victim of abuse - much more clearly so than Harry. And that's disturbing in a different way, since the Dursleys are quite clearly presented as abusers. Anyone who treated a child the way they treated Harry should probably be in jail. That Harry is - apparently - so little damaged, and that the psychological abuse they subject him to is presented as a joke, is just chilling.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh - an addition to the above, after reading the entire blog. The psychologist points out that narcissists of all types refuse to accept blame for the problems in a relationship. This does NOT fit Severus at all, but it does fit the other characters.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Looking back over the blog, one comment that really stood out to me is that vulnerable narcissists see themselves as "victims of those who don't see how superior they are." That's Harry all over!

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

Great link. I'd say it describes Harry and Dumbledore perfectly.

James and Lily both seem to be the arrogant narcissistic type; Petunia is more vulnerable, oddly enough.

When I image Lily and Petunia's childhood I see Lily as the spoiled princess with Petunia getting ignored. With Petunia and Lily always hearing how pretty Lily is, how talented Lily i, how special Lily is. Anything Petunia did would never quite measure up.

overcompensating for deeply-rooted inferiority complexes (possibly stemming from abuse in many cases), which leads to them getting defensive and angry does seem to apply to Snape, but narcissists of all types refuse to accept blame for the problems in a relationship and Snape clearly blames himself for what happened. Snape isn't a narcissist who sees himself as superior to everyone else. He views Lily as superior and I think Dumbledore as superior.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I agree - see my comment below!

I do wonder what it indicates that:
1. These books are so full of narcissists and narcissism, and
2. They are so massively popular.

I'm not sure that says anything good about our values as a society. Just my two cents.

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

Observe the popularity of Twilight, as explicit a narcissist's fantasy as you'll ever get.

Narcissism sells, apparently. (And its defenders get quite tetchy if you question their "escapist fantasy"...)

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

Ron has some traits, but would need some actual high self-opinion of himself to fit the narcissism - he's got a dysfunctional inferiority complex, though. However, he does play into narcissism, in that he's Harry's constantly-inferior sidekick, and so makes Harry seem better by contrast.

Hermione's the megalomaniac kind in DH and somewhat in HBP, I'd say, but she's consistently cowed by Harry's temper,

Dudley WAS the arrogant kind, but then he suffered corrective Dementor-run-in, which Made Him A Better Person. (Creepy subtext? Why, yes!)

Sirius is the arrogant narcissistic type to a T, with possible comorbid Antisocial Personality Disorder. Apparently this is common in the House of Black.

Draco WAS the arrogant kind, again, but then came HBP and DH.

"That Harry is - apparently - so little damaged, and that the psychological abuse they subject him to is presented as a joke, is just chilling."
My fan theory is that the Horcrux was actually mucking with his mind to block out the effects and prevent damage, and that it was key to his psychological stability. Note that, when it was getting most heavily interfered with by the reborn Voldemort... well, OOTP happened. Also note that, over the course of OOTP to DH, the mental bond reversed direction from Voldemort-in-power to Harry-in-power - why? Harry certainly wasn't working on it, but something else might have been..

Of course, there's no textual support for this, but it would explain how Harry consistently has no side-effects from the Dursleys' abuse. Aside from 'Rowling couldn't be bothered to research and write about said side-effects', the likely actual explanation.

*sigh* The fans put ten times as much thought into these things as Rowling ever did...

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

The psychologist points out that narcissists of all types refuse to accept blame for the problems in a relationship. This does NOT fit Severus at all, but it does fit the other characters.

Are you serious? It fits Severus to a tee! Certainly in regard to his professional relationship to Harry, and to a lesser extent with Lily. There are several instances in 'The Prince's Tale' of Severus clearly feeling very uncomfortable when Lily challenges him on some of his dubious friends and changing the subject because he doesn't like where the conversation is heading.

And where does all the power lie, in his professional relationship with Harry? The power lies with SEVERUS. He's the adult. He's the professional. Yes, he is protecting Harry. Yes, he gets very angry when Harry stupidly puts himself in danger. But he doesn't handle the situation professionally. Of course Harry can be a prat, but he can't help being James's son.

And Dumbledore might indulge Harry, but he still leaves it up to Severus to discipline him. For all the Dumbledore-bashing that goes on here, that might be worth bearing in mind. (Not being much of a Dumbledore fan myself, I regard him pretty much as an absentee Headmaster. ;) )

Anyway, I like the bitter, screwed-up, nasty Severus I see in canon. His nastiness is often enjoyable (and sometimes infuriating). Plus, I understand it. Severus had precious little love shown to him in his life, that's partly why he is so screwed-up and nasty. But nasty he is. Every bit as nasty as Hermione can be (and nasty to her, too). It's what helps make his character so memorable. He's on the side of the angels, in the end, but he doesn't have to be all sweetness and light about it, and by gum, he certainly isn't. :D

There is often a deep disconnect in the DTC discussions. If Rowling is such a crap writer, then it would follow that Snape, and the Malfoys, are just as badly written as the other characters. Yet she provides a convincing psychological profile in her portrayal of Severus. (The fact that this seemed to come as some surprise to her amuses me, but I've never been interested in bashing her as a person, merely critiquing her writing.)

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

Rowling is not the best writer in the world, but she's not stupid. I can't believe she was unaware of the side effects of child abuse.

She didn't write gritty urban fiction, she wrote a children's fantasy series. Harry and his Wicked Relatives belong to a trope straight out of Roald Dahl, or even earlier, the Brothers Grimm.

No argument from me on how good HP fanfic can be, though, in improving on the original. ;)

[oryx_leucoryx]

Of course Harry can be a prat, but he can't help being James's son.

But Harry needs correction for being a prat, regardless of being James' son. My teachers would have handled Harry's entitled stupidity in a very similar manner that Severus handles Harry. With the difference that they would have had the support of the school administration so the teachers would have been less frustrated. And of course my teachers wouldn't have needed to disguise care for a student's safety (short and long term) as cruelty.

And Dumbledore might indulge Harry, but he still leaves it up to Severus to discipline him.

And then undermines everything Severus does.

Yet she provides a convincing psychological profile in her portrayal of Severus.

Not really. He is only convincing when we ignore her interviews.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

What Oryx said. In the first Potions class, in particular, Severus is not especially nasty to Harry. We can and should reinterpret that scene in the light of what we learn from the Prince's tale. What do we learn? That Severus knows Petunia to have been protective of Lily, and to have wanted to attend Hogwarts. That Lily, his best friend, was gifted at Potions. It would never have occurred to him in a million years that Tuney wouldn't even have told Harry about Hogwarts, and it's pretty clear that he was trying to find out whether Harry shared Lily's gift for Potions. Even before I knew that, I could not think Snape's behavior terrible in this scene.

Just two more points, if you don't mind. I did say, above, that Severus, like Ron, shares some narcissistic traits with Harry and practically every other character in these books. I'm no psychologist, but, as I understand it, narcissism and other syndromes exist on a continuum. Practically every normal human being behaves - sometimes - in an "abnormal" way, just as a normal young child often shows autistic behavior (self-stimming, etc.) BUT-

Severus is really, truly, just about the only character in these books who does take some responsibility for his actions. That is the whole point, structurally, of the character. He is the repentant sinner. He's REPENTANT!! He apologizes to Lily, offering no excuses, and, from what we see, never darkens her door or bothers her again. He goes to Dumbledore and lives his entire adult life in expiation for his youthful mistakes. No, his repentance isn't always perfect. Nor is he. But it is real.

Which brings me to my second point - Rowling's writing skill, or lack of it. I have said repeatedly that Rowling is (among other things - there are other factors, too) a very good observer who is poor at examining/thinking about what she sees. She can describe characters awfully well on the surface. But the motives she ascribes to them just don't add up. To take a (hopefully non-controversial) example, look at Dudley. When he faced the Dementors, he had to live through his worst nightmare, and he was changed as a result. What was his worst nightmare? Obviously, being treated like his cousin. The Dementors forced him, willy-nilly, to empathize with Harry - because being Harry was his deepest fear. Dudley grew up knowing, on a very deep level, that his parents' love and indulgence was conditional. He must have been terrified of losing it - thus, his constant brattiness and testing. But what does Rowling say about this scene? That the Dementors "Showed Dudley himself as he really was". Really? Dementors can do that? Then why did they never do it to Harry? Why were we always told, in canon, that what the Dementors show you is your deepest fear?

Rowling just didn't think it through. As with Dudley, so with all the other characters.

My two cents.

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

Not really. He is only convincing when we ignore her interviews.

@ Oryx: She wrote the character: he doesn't exist outside her head. Therefore there must be SOMETHING there in the text about Snape's character which you and I are picking up on, regardless of the author's intent or what she says in interviews. Isn't that how the dynamic interaction between narrative and reader works? And has always worked?

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

Rowling's writing skill, or lack of it. I have said repeatedly that Rowling is (among other things - there are other factors, too) a very good observer who is poor at examining/thinking about what she sees.

I agree with this. She is a very good storyteller, IMO, but not a great world-builder. There are a number of logical gaps in the Potterverse. And while JKR creates great characters (even the less successful ones, like Rita*, are memorable), there is often a disconnect between how she sees her own characters and what readers pick up on.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Hey, Pearlette! When you say, "She wrote the character. He doesn't exist outside her head", I beg to differ. I'm a writer, too, though a beginner, and i believe strongly in "the death of the author". The character does not exist in Rowling's head. He exists on the page, and in the space between the written words and the readers' imaginations. He belongs to the readers!

So it doesn't matter what the author thinks she meant. What matters is what she actually wrote. Is that what you're saying in the latter part of your comment? I'm not at all sure i understand you.

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

Actually, MaryJ, I do agree with you. I ‘m not a big fan of ‘death of the author’ (as a Tolkien fan, it’s impossible for me to be so hardline about that), but, yes, you are right: the character takes on a life of their own in and even beyond the story, in the interaction between reading the text and the reader’s imagination. To me the author isn’t dead (I’m not using the word 'dead' literally since Tolkien, for example, is, in fact, dead). However, their story takes on a life of its own after they have completed it. That is a more rich and satisfying way to see our relationship with literature.

So it doesn't matter what the author thinks she meant. What matters is what she actually wrote. Is that what you're saying in the latter part of your comment? I'm not at all sure i understand you.

That is exactly what I meant.

[oryx_leucoryx]

As Mary said, he exists in the heads of each reader. A different version of him. Some readers have more than one version. Much of what people are picking up on is how they fill up what we weren't told. And much of that is due to the promise people saw earlier in the series, when we got hints that Rowling had some kind of plan. But her plan ran out by mid-series leaving us with the choice of throwing the books away in disgust, accepting her version, no matter how shallow and incoherent and not looking further, or using the remaining gaps as means to construct whatever we want that each one of us finds more satisfying.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Anyway, I like the bitter, screwed-up, nasty Severus I see in canon. His nastiness is often enjoyable (and sometimes infuriating).

I like his nastiness ever more because the more I read the more I agree with him. He tells Harry what I want to say to him, more often than not.

There are several instances in 'The Prince's Tale' of Severus clearly feeling very uncomfortable when Lily challenges him on some of his dubious friends and changing the subject because he doesn't like where the conversation is heading.

But Lily isn't aware that much of her accusations apply both ways. While James et al were not yet her friends at the moment she really wanted to have their company (or at least James'), and James was just as Dark and bigoted as Mulciber at the time. So I can see why Severus would be confused by her accusations.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Sorry to come in so late, but this is extremely well said. This is a lot of why, despite no longer being an HP fan, I continue to sympathize with Snape.