![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sweettalkeress.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockNot too long ago I had some major brainwaves about love, which I thought would be relevant to our discussion about Harry Potter. Rowling in her books loves (no pun intended) to portray love as this all-powerful force for good (except when it’s not). The thing is, though, she seems to have a pretty messed-up idea about what “love” really means.
Awhile back I was reading an article in a magazine that was at least partly a critique of the John Lennon song “Imagine.” Its major point was simply this: the song’s call for unity and love between all the peoples of the earth was fundamentally flawed and misguided because for “love” to mean anything at all, it has to be discriminatory. Simply put, love entails playing favorites. When two people get married, they promise to care about each other more than anyone else. Parents love their children more than anyone else’s children, and by the same token, children (in most cases) love their parents more than other people’s parents and most other adults in their lives. Love is actually a pretty selfish emotion, albeit one that tends to lead to selfless behaviors.
As I was reading the article I was reminded of a really great show called “Noein.” In “Noein” my favorite character is a villain named Kuina, who is passionately in love with a woman named Kosagi, who works for him. At one point, he openly declares that he’s willing to let his entire world be completely destroyed—except for her, because he wants them to have a happy life together and views the destruction of the world they currently inhabit as the best way to accomplish this. There’s never a doubt that he loves Kosagi, and he treats her very nicely, especially compared to most equivalent characters in lesser shows, but simply loving her does not make him a good person. A Harry Potter character might say that he was a villain and therefore incapable of the pure, selfless love a good person would have, but the heroes of “Noein” do the same thing. At another point in the story, the show’s heroine, Haruka, learns that she’s going to die young and sacrifice her life to save her world. When Karasu, the futuristic version of her boyfriend (it’s a show about time travel) tells her this, Haruka, who has been collecting information about her past and future selves the entire time, reassures him by telling Karasu that she wasn’t sacrificing herself to save the world—no, she was sacrificing herself to save HIM. In other words, we’re meant to see Haruka as more admirable for sacrificing herself for just one person she cared about, than if she were doing it for some objectively-defined greater good.
Now bring this back around to Harry Potter. We’re supposed to boo and hiss at Snape because he (it’s commonly understood) was perfectly content to serve Voldemort initially and only got cold feet when he learned that Lily, whom he loved, was under attack. The thing is, even if that’s true, that’s what love is. If he truly loved her, it stands to reason that he would care about her more than any of Voldemort’s prior victims. And, of course, it’s a testament to his own character that he’s willing to work against Voldemort after she was safely dead.
By contrast, Harry and his mother Lily, who are held up as paragons of selfless love for everyone, show little or no love or care toward any actual people. Lily, if her behavior during SWM is any indication, seemed more interested in the idea of being gracious to Snape than in doing much actual work to keep him out of trouble or provide him with emotional support. And Harry, of course, uses his own emotions and supposedly deep love of others as an excuse to fish for sympathy and avoid empathizing with or relating to other people. When he eventually sacrifices himself, it’s not because he has anyone in particular he wants to protect, but simply because he’s been told it’s what he’s meant to do. Lily, meanwhile, was ultimately at her most heroic and loving when she offered up her own life in exchange for her son’s because it required her to show love and concern for an actual person (something which, as it happens, Narcissa, Draco’s mother, was just as willing to do, though her death was not necessarily a guarantee).
If love is discriminatory, then it follows that the key to helping people on a large scale is not to “love” them per se, but to recognize that they love themselves and theirs as much as you love yourself and yours. And this is something Harry consistently fails to do. He seems to think it’s okay for him to be sad Cedric died, but not Cho, who knew him better. At the same time, he expects the world to stop turning every time someone he’s personally close to dies, whether it’s Sirius or Dumbledore or Fred. Indeed, it’s only toward the very end of the last book that Harry shows any sense of even caring about Slytherins or indeed anyone in any house but Gryffindor other than his own personal friends. Contrast Snape, who understands enough about Narcissa’s plight and grief to make an Unbreakable Vow to protect her son, even if it means going directly against Voldemort’s instructions and risking his wrath.
So in short, Harry fails at loving, and he fails at putting any feelings of love toward any real use.
Awhile back I was reading an article in a magazine that was at least partly a critique of the John Lennon song “Imagine.” Its major point was simply this: the song’s call for unity and love between all the peoples of the earth was fundamentally flawed and misguided because for “love” to mean anything at all, it has to be discriminatory. Simply put, love entails playing favorites. When two people get married, they promise to care about each other more than anyone else. Parents love their children more than anyone else’s children, and by the same token, children (in most cases) love their parents more than other people’s parents and most other adults in their lives. Love is actually a pretty selfish emotion, albeit one that tends to lead to selfless behaviors.
As I was reading the article I was reminded of a really great show called “Noein.” In “Noein” my favorite character is a villain named Kuina, who is passionately in love with a woman named Kosagi, who works for him. At one point, he openly declares that he’s willing to let his entire world be completely destroyed—except for her, because he wants them to have a happy life together and views the destruction of the world they currently inhabit as the best way to accomplish this. There’s never a doubt that he loves Kosagi, and he treats her very nicely, especially compared to most equivalent characters in lesser shows, but simply loving her does not make him a good person. A Harry Potter character might say that he was a villain and therefore incapable of the pure, selfless love a good person would have, but the heroes of “Noein” do the same thing. At another point in the story, the show’s heroine, Haruka, learns that she’s going to die young and sacrifice her life to save her world. When Karasu, the futuristic version of her boyfriend (it’s a show about time travel) tells her this, Haruka, who has been collecting information about her past and future selves the entire time, reassures him by telling Karasu that she wasn’t sacrificing herself to save the world—no, she was sacrificing herself to save HIM. In other words, we’re meant to see Haruka as more admirable for sacrificing herself for just one person she cared about, than if she were doing it for some objectively-defined greater good.
Now bring this back around to Harry Potter. We’re supposed to boo and hiss at Snape because he (it’s commonly understood) was perfectly content to serve Voldemort initially and only got cold feet when he learned that Lily, whom he loved, was under attack. The thing is, even if that’s true, that’s what love is. If he truly loved her, it stands to reason that he would care about her more than any of Voldemort’s prior victims. And, of course, it’s a testament to his own character that he’s willing to work against Voldemort after she was safely dead.
By contrast, Harry and his mother Lily, who are held up as paragons of selfless love for everyone, show little or no love or care toward any actual people. Lily, if her behavior during SWM is any indication, seemed more interested in the idea of being gracious to Snape than in doing much actual work to keep him out of trouble or provide him with emotional support. And Harry, of course, uses his own emotions and supposedly deep love of others as an excuse to fish for sympathy and avoid empathizing with or relating to other people. When he eventually sacrifices himself, it’s not because he has anyone in particular he wants to protect, but simply because he’s been told it’s what he’s meant to do. Lily, meanwhile, was ultimately at her most heroic and loving when she offered up her own life in exchange for her son’s because it required her to show love and concern for an actual person (something which, as it happens, Narcissa, Draco’s mother, was just as willing to do, though her death was not necessarily a guarantee).
If love is discriminatory, then it follows that the key to helping people on a large scale is not to “love” them per se, but to recognize that they love themselves and theirs as much as you love yourself and yours. And this is something Harry consistently fails to do. He seems to think it’s okay for him to be sad Cedric died, but not Cho, who knew him better. At the same time, he expects the world to stop turning every time someone he’s personally close to dies, whether it’s Sirius or Dumbledore or Fred. Indeed, it’s only toward the very end of the last book that Harry shows any sense of even caring about Slytherins or indeed anyone in any house but Gryffindor other than his own personal friends. Contrast Snape, who understands enough about Narcissa’s plight and grief to make an Unbreakable Vow to protect her son, even if it means going directly against Voldemort’s instructions and risking his wrath.
So in short, Harry fails at loving, and he fails at putting any feelings of love toward any real use.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-06-27 05:26 am (UTC)Rowling in her books loves (no pun intended) to portray love as this all-powerful force for good -
It's one of her most horrible fuzzy wave-the-hands-and-don't-give-any-concrete-details crutches, isn't it? The Lily mummy magic thing doesn't stand up; Harry's duplication, ditto; James's failure to produce daddy magic protection is offensive (exacerbated by Rowling's ludicrous attempt to handwave this); Harry's 'power the dark lord knows not' being 'love' is essentially abandoned as a failed device in book 6 and never eventuates; and so forth.
for “love” to mean anything at all, it has to be discriminatory.
As a base axiom I'd disagree with that outright. Yes, one can 'love' one person more than another, but love itself isn't zero-sum.
I've always thought one definition of 'love' as being that condition wherein a person is willing to sacrifice his own desires and wishes for the happiness of the other. There's nothing discriminatory in that definition (save discriminating against oneself).
I'm not religious myself but Christian faith states that Christ so loved the *world* that he died for our sins, right? That's an example of 'love' right there that's all-encompassing.
There are no doubt other individuals who have 'loved' everyone in their world. Mother Theresa for example. :-)
So -
Simply put, love entails playing favorites.
I don't agree.
Snape ... learned that Lily, whom he loved, ...
I'm in a minority of folk here, I guess, who don't believe that Snape truly 'loved' Lily. He didn't hold her happiness about his own; otherwise he would have wanted her husband and child saved.
Harry and his mother Lily, who are held up as paragons of selfless love for everyone -
Huh?
Rowling's association of Harry and 'love' is all over the place, but where is it shown that Lily 'selflessly loved everyone'?
And Harry, of course, uses his own emotions and supposedly deep love of others as an excuse to fish for sympathy -
Can you cite examples of this too?
Harry's somewhat self-centred, maybe - I never thought he was overly that way - he constantly fights the good fight, even if passively and badly - but where does he fish for sympathy using his 'love' as an excuse?
When he eventually sacrifices himself, it’s not because he has anyone in particular he wants to protect -
That's not true:
Dumbledore knew, as Voldemort knew, that Harry would not let anyone else die for him now that he had discovered it was in his power to stop it.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point, though:
- simply because he’s been told it’s what he’s meant to do.
Yeah; Harry's brainwashing by Dumbledore into calmly accepting that it was his 'job' to be a sacrificial lamb was horrible.
Narcissa, Draco’s mother, was just as willing to do, though her death was not necessarily a guarantee
Where does it show that Narcissa was prepared to sacrifice her own life for Draco's?
(Mind you, I've never understood her choice, that little scene, at all; it just doesn't make sense to me. If Harry wasn't dead, then say so; kill him properly this time; and you still get to advance into Hogwarts and rejoin your DE son.)
If love is discriminatory -
I don't think it is.
he expects the world to stop turning every time someone he’s personally close to dies -
Don't we all feel that way? Not seriously expecting the world to stop turning, but honest emotion at the death of a loved one would be a common characteristic of 'love'.
Harry fails at loving, and he fails at putting any feelings of love toward any real use.
He sacrificed his life to save others, as per the quote above. That's love. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".
Not particularly a Slytherin defender, just trying to explain my views on two points you raised. :P
Date: 2015-06-27 07:30 am (UTC)Not asking for James to be spared is a fair point. I will agree Snape's reasons for not asking for James Potter's life to be spared are likely all personal. On the other hand, he had really no reason TO do so, aside from Lily loving James. A Snape-defender might point out that asking Voldemort to spare someone who had been a thorn in his side would be a pretty big deal in the first place (and I believe "defied three times" is meant to indicate that the Potters WERE quite the nuisances to Voldemort), and one Snape might only have been able to request because he had managed to report the (partial!) prophecy. What's more, Lily would have been, to Voldemort, just a random Mudblood; James came from an old Pureblood line and may have been politically important to kill outright.
Furthermore, in what state would they have lived if they had been spared? We may presume Voldemort would have captured them- then what? It seems reasonable to say Lily would have been given to Severus - fine from the blood-purist standpoint, a Mudblood being enslaved to a loyal Half-Blood. But what of James? Would it have been allowed for a Pureblood, blood-traitor or not, to be given over to the mercies of a Half-Blood? He certainly wouldn't be allowed to go free, and it's unlikely the Order wouldn't stage a counter-kidnapping if he was "released" under the Imperius. If he lived, he would likely live in Death Eater captivity, which might be worse than death. I find it highly unlikely, though, that he'd be allowed to live with Lily or in any state with which Lily might be happy.
Again, I do not think Harry would be allowed to live at all.
I don't think any of this canonically went through Snape's mind, or that it was intended, but the issue is deeper than Rowling portrays it as. I think that, the way the situation is laid out, Snape chose the only one of the three he would have been both willing and able to save.
(And, in fairness, he must have realized James would live if Dumbledore's protection was successful. James and/or Harry's death was not the priority - it was Lily's life.)
I believe the Narcissa bit is referring to her willingness to RISK her life by lying to Voldemort. My interpretation of that scene is:
A) the Malfoy's were afraid of Voldemort to the point that they wanted him gone;
B) Harry was the Last Hope for that;
C) Narcissa decided to gamble and give Harry a second chance in the hopes that he could kill Voldemort successfully this time.
The more obvious interpretation would be that she hoped that, in a new battle after Harry reappeared, the Malfoy parents could find Draco and flee the country with him (perhaps moving to Australia ;) ). However, I can't remember if Voldemort could track unwilling former DEs through their Marks - in case that's implied, I go with the current C) instead.
Re: Not particularly a Slytherin defender, just trying to explain my views on two points you raised.
Date: 2015-06-27 10:10 am (UTC)... Again, I do not think Harry would be allowed to live at all.
You're right; Snape would not have asked VOLDEMORT to spare Harry; since the whole objective of the dark lord was to kill the child of prophecy.
But he could have asked for James to be spared ... but did not. (And yes, I don't think any of that went through Snape's mind either.)
But the quality of Snape's 'love' for Lily is measured *twice*; firstly, in what he asked of Voldemort.
But then again, in what he asks of *Dumbledore*:
“You disgust me,” said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little, “You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? They can die, as long as you have what you want?”
Snape said nothing, but merely looked up at Dumbledore.
“Hide them all, then,” he croaked. “Keep her – them – safe. Please.”
And with Dumbledore there was absolutely nothing stopping Snape from asking for all three Potters to be saved.
He just didn't think of it.
Because he was obsessed with Lily ... but not her happiness, what *she* wanted.
He failed the 'true love' test.
B) Harry was the Last Hope for that;
C) Narcissa decided to gamble and give Harry a second chance in the hopes that he could kill Voldemort successfully this time.
I don't think Narcissa thought that far. I'm more inclined to hold with Harry's opinion:
Still feigning death on the ground, he understood. Narcissa knew that the only way she would be permitted to enter Hogwarts, and find her son, was as part of the onquering army. She no longer cared whether Voldemort won.
Not caring whether Voldemort won means you don't care if he loses either. :-) So Narcissa just didn't care what happened; her thinking was more short-term; as you say:
she hoped that, in a new battle after Harry reappeared, the Malfoy parents could find Draco and flee the country with him (perhaps moving to Australia ;) )
Yeah. She just wanted to enter the castle, grab her son and try and leave.
(We're all agreed that Australia is a wonderful place with no dark lords. :-))
But the scene still doesn't make sense to me. In the real world - or a *good* story - the villains would have a few goes at killing Achilles before his invulnerability is acknowledged as a fact. Cut off his head. Drown him. Etcetera.
And then they'd still advance as the 'conquering army' into Hogwarts.
The mere fact that Harry was playing dead meant that he was no real obstacle to the dark lord and his army.
It's a small point, maybe, in comparison with Rowling's numerous other errors. Does anyone else here, though, think that the whole 'Narcissa giving Harry a pass' isn't an error, a lazy writer's shortcut? As a Slytherin who was only concerned with her son, wouldn't the best path to Draco, with the highest probability of success, be as I've suggested?
Re: Not particularly a Slytherin defender, just trying to explain my views on two points you raised.
Date: 2015-06-27 01:59 pm (UTC)I presume Voldy has already peered onto Snape's mind, at the very least once, to determine why a half-blood, whom other slytherins knew had once been very close to a muggleborn, would want to join up. I cannot believe the Marauders didn't feature heavily in that peek -- altho' I admit that IF his father physically abused him then he also probably played a large role.
But even if James wasn't seen in Snape's memories (and can you believe that the aftermath of the Werewolf incident didn't come up?) there are those other DEs in his age range that know about the bullying. Unless every other slytherin IN HIS YEAR did not become a DE, they at least witnessed SWM at the Lake. Since none came to his rescue, we cannot be positive that his so-called friends were actually in his year and present.
Sev has no possible way to spin a request to spare James into something believable to Voldy. All he has is that James is a pureblood, but to ask to spare him for that reason alone is to ask Voldy to spare all blood traitors because they are purebloods. Not to mention that James is a known fighting member of the Order. With Lily, even tho' she was a known enemy, he was able to spin it as 'desire' and revenge on James. To ask to save James would make his spin on Lily unbelievable. The only way it would work would be to have James watch Snape rape her. Something, Sev not only doesn't want to set up, but would still means James' death after the rape. Lily would be kept alive as Voldy's hostage over Sev's behavior.
As for not asking Albus to save James -- I cannot personally believe that Snape ever thought that by asking Albus to save Lily, he wasn't asking him to save James as well. In Snape's mind, James is highly favored by Albus. I cannot see how Sev would ever think, for even a second, that Albus might protect Lily and not protect James.
Just by going to Albus at all, he is accepting that James and Harry are to be protected. And even tho' Albus mentions his disgust, it is still Snape who suggests hiding them all. At that point, Albus is still playing as if he won't do anything to protect them -- not until he has wrung out a promise from Snape that he would do 'anything' to have them protected.
No -- if Snape didn't love Lily, he wouldn't have gone to Albus at all. He wouldn't have risked his life (he thought Albus would kill him and just asking Voldy to spare her was a great risk as well) to save hers and he couldn't possibly believe that by asking Albus to protect her that James (and Harry) wouldn't be bundled in.
Re: Not particularly a Slytherin defender, just trying to explain my views on two points you raised.
Date: 2015-06-28 01:20 am (UTC)Sure. But it's Snape's request of Dumbledore which is key in analysing Snape's feelings for Lily, as I commented earlier above.
I cannot personally believe that Snape ever thought that by asking Albus to save Lily, he wasn't asking him to save James as well.
Regardless of what you personally believe, the text shows that the men most important to Lily were an afterthought; and one made only under pressure:
“Hide them all, then,” he croaked. “Keep her – them – safe. Please.”
no subject
Date: 2015-06-27 08:54 pm (UTC)By asking a favor of the Dark Lord, Snape might have saved Lily alone; by going to Dumbledore, he was taking action to save the entire family, even though his personal concern was for Lily. If he had truly wanted Lily alive and the other two dead, he could have just trusted to Volders, and hoped for the best.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-27 10:11 pm (UTC)That sums it up so nicely!
no subject
Date: 2015-06-28 01:03 am (UTC)Sure. But I'm not analysing Dumbledore's actions here; I'm looking at Snape and measuring his 'love' for Lily.
his personal concern was for Lily.
Yes. His personal concern, and the ony life he initially wanted to save. Which shows that Snape wasn't thinking solely and only of her happiness, which would be the case if his love for her was of the highest order.
Regardless of Dumbledore's reaction, it is clear from the dialogue that Snape's initial request of Dumbledore was the rescue of Lily, and not the whole family. And that keeps him a couple of notches below 'true love' in what he felt for Lily Potter.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-28 06:07 am (UTC)P.S. I like Hermione too, though I don’t admire her quite as much as you do. We all have our preferences, and I rank Herms right after Sevvie among my fan favorites.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-01 06:28 pm (UTC)This is not born out of fatalism or self-righteousness, but love for the people he can save. Whether or not it is true (and I have my doubts) that his sacrifice protected those fighting the DEs at the Battle of Hogwarts, it is still a power he possesses, and it is a power the "Dark Lord knows not". No one said Harry had to be the only one with such power ;)
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 11:13 am (UTC)Right. *nods*
... but did he not have independent moral faculty?
That's ... arguable.
Okay, Harry clearly showed independence and freedom of choice for much of the series, but then when it came down to this, 'finally, the truth', that he was supposed to die ... he exhibits none of that freedom at all. He doesn't think of alternatives or options. He just meekly accepts that it is his 'job' to march off to the slaughter:
Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive. His job was to walk calmly into Death’s welcoming arms.
In that scene of the book ... I'm not sure he did have - or exhibit - any true 'independence' of thought.
He knew what he was doing, and what he was doing was *brave* - he was scared of dying (his heart pounding fiercely in his chest), he didn't want to die - he was dying to protect others, out of love, as I said - he was a hero - but, as per the course of Rowling's simplistic little tunnel-visionned tale, he was a very passive hero.
I'm not sure we're at odds here. I appreciate Harry's bravery, his heroism, his 'love', etc. But, in this more than anywhere else in the series - Harry was 'conditioned' to 'do the job'. He acted as if he had no real choice. Which (on a re-read) makes the scene rather sad (if not ugly; particularly when you consider the suicide cheer squad).
He has the courage to walk to his death -
Yup. Although it was the (lesser?) courage of a man with *no other alternative*. We see those alternatives; but Harry, resigned to doing 'the job', did not allow himself to consider them.
- even though he could not be sure that Voldemort would be killed.
If you mean this was so because Nagini was still alive, sure.
This is not born out of fatalism or self-righteousness, but love for the people he can save.
I was arguing that he 'loved' those people in my original comment; but there was a large element of 'fatalism' that reduced Harry's struggle against his choice by a large degree and thus reduced his 'bravery', I feel. Still, he died to save his friends, and that's heroic.
Maybe it's not that it was 'watered down' heroism but 'pushed into it' heroism which fails the series for me? The fatalistic "he was not supposed to survive. His job was to die" thing just makes the scene a lot weaker/uglier than it could have been.
Whether or not it is true (and I have my doubts) that his sacrifice protected those fighting the DEs at the Battle of Hogwarts
I think we're supposed to believe that this was the case, even though it's another one of Rowling's huge errors. Harry was trying to cast protego shields to protect people against Riddle seconds before he came up with his asinine "they're protected from you" theory. And Riddle was knocking his opponents down like skittles anyway.
If you saying that Harry was simply wrong - and thus letting Rowling off the hook with that one - then I totally understand. :-) Although I suspect she - and a lot of her readers - would be stunned to read you saying it.
it is still a power he possesses, and it is a power the "Dark Lord knows not". No one said Harry had to be the only one with such power ;)
Which makes it a total farce. There are fans running around today who still think that Harry had some (unique) 'power the dark lord knows not', but as you say, his 'power' was nothing unique to him. His 'love' accounted for the destruction of only one-eighth of the horcruxes (or arguably one-quarter) and had nothing to do with the deus ex machina stick clobbering Voldemort at the end.
Yes, technically the fact that he was 'born at the end of the 7th month' with the power of love doesn't preclude a few hundred/thousand others being born in that month and throughout the year with exactly the same power, but in that case the prophecy becomes nothing but a tautology (if that's the word). Very disappointing.
But that's the Harry Potter series in a nutshell. :-) :-(