![[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}
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.”