Love in HP

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Since Valentine's Day is close by, I thought this topic would be fitting to bring up and ramble about until I get it off my chest.

Here comes a few (potentially) silly questions I have about love as a reoccurring and major theme in the HP books: is love a redemptive and saving force? Is it a reflection of our inner nature and morals? Does it make us better or worse than we are? Is it proof we’re capable of good? Or is it simply a nice message to have in a children’s series i.e. love is more powerful than anything?

Voldemort is said to be incapable of love. He’s the product of an unhappy and coercive union; therefore, he’s doomed from the moment he’s born. Little Tom Riddle never had a chance.

Harry is said to have an amazing ability to love. His parents died trying to protect him and Lily gave him her magical protection because of her sacrifice. It doesn’t matter if Harry grew up in a terrible and neglectful household and grows up to experience a great deal of horrible things; he’s saved from the moment he’s born. He has the love of his friends and mentor figures too.

Dumbledore fell in love with the wrong man and suffered for it. He tries to rectify his mistake and… I’m not sure. Dumbledore confuses the heck out of me. He’s made critical mistakes in the name of love for Grindelwald but is still venerated despite his morally dubious self. He leads a long and admirable life and is seen as the epitome of good. I suppose he’s “saved” in a way too?

And then there’s Snape. He fell in love with the right woman but chose to follow his harmful ambitions and suffered for it. He gets Lily killed, shows remorse and strives to atone for the rest of his life. He remains slavishly devoted to Lily in exchange for nothing. He leads a miserable, isolated, and brutal life and succumbs to a miserable, isolated, and brutal death. He’s doomed from the moment he called Lily a “mudblood” (maybe even before - when he’s sorted into Slytherin). Beyond being branded a pitiful and tragic figure, I don’t think he was saved or redeemed by love at all. Although some fans disagree. I go back and forth sometimes too.

Lastly, we have the Malfoys. They’re established as a selfish and craven prejudiced family. And yet - they love each other. It’s Narcissa’s love for Draco which pushes for his protection. They walk away relatively unscathed from the war, other than their hurt pride and reputation. Love saved them, although it didn’t fully redeem them as moral figures in the story.

(There’s also love between other characters, such as the Dursleys’ love for their son, Bellatrix’s love for Voldemort, Tonks/Lupin, other romances, and so on. But I’m focusing on the big examples with the most significance to the overall plot.)

Love is important in the HP series. It’s heralded as a great power to have against evil and corruption. But does it - in a strange way - reveal how frozen the characters are? Harry is empowered by love because he’s the hero and innately good. Voldemort has no use for love because he’s the villain and innately evil. Dumbledore screws up greatly for love, but it’s all cool because he’s innately wonderful. Snape is innately a horrible person who made bad choices, but he loved Lily - so let’s be magnanimous and grant him a modicum of praise (but no proper redemption). The Malfoys are innately selfish and shady people, but they have love as a family - so let’s be magnanimous and grant them some praise too (but no proper redemption either).

My thoughts are all over the place. I’m a rambling type of thinker. I think JKR was going for the idealistic message that love is powerful and the most valuable thing in the world capable of defeating evil and revealing the humanity in unscrupulous individuals. However, it’s also connected to who you are innately as a person. But why does it have to be?

Why does Voldemort have to be “incapable of love” to be evil rather than his actions and choices as a person? Why does Harry have his parents and his ability to love praised to prove he’s capable of being a hero rather than his own actions and choices as a person? Why does love make Snape and the Malfoys worthy of recognition instead of their own actions and choices regardless of love? If it were not for their love for someone, they would be considered despicable and unworthy of mercy? And Dumbledore - well, he gets to love a big bad boy, mess up, and move on to be ultra powerful and admired because he’s untouchable (despite JKR’s attempt to give him shades of grey in DH).

And why is Lily’s love for Harry so special that it creates a unique protection spell? Have no other mothers or fathers in the history of the Wizarding World died to protect their child? Because only Harry can be the ultimate hero empowered by love?

Ah, I’m done for now. A lot of rhetorical questions. Love is weird. Or maybe I need to not take it too seriously… but I’m going to anyways.

Comments

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

Yes. Made possible by; no. Better. No. Yes.

The capacity for doing so makes you a better person, but not necessarily great or even good (that probably depends more on your morals and willingness to sacrifice vs. selfishness), and *actually* doing so depends on the circumstances of your life. I happen think that's true *and* also reflected in the stories, but as far as the books go, it began as a children's story and 'love saves' has a nice hook when you're trying to sell it to publishers. /cynic

I think the answer lies in your assessment of the Malfoys and Albus. 'Love saved them [from Azkaban], although it didn’t fully redeem them as moral figures in the story.' So basically what I said above. (Which buggers some of the overarching aspects of 'love as a theme' in the books. It basically seems to be a 'nice to have' and a rallying cry.) And: 'Dumbledore screws up greatly for love, but it’s all cool because he’s innately wonderful' would mean what matters in the end is what you *are/do*, and *not* that (or who) you loved, because love in that case was clearly bad. Albus improves *despite* it.

With Voldemort, I thought the key as he's described was to view him as a psychopath (and therefore apparently 'evil'), and effectively untreatable, and that part and parcel of his diagnosis is he is incapable of love. (Also: coercive union and magic!, obvs. (I liked that.)) So not that he is 'evil' *because* he is incapable of that emotion, but he is 'evil' and *thus* incapable, in addition to everything else, if the distinction makes sense? (But maybe that's a chicken / egg thing...) Still, it seems like a lack of empathy and conscience are bigger keys to making him 'evil' than an absence of love.

Harry I've had huge problems with, as he's a fairly selfish, self-absorbed asshat for much of the series (yes, mileage varies, and it's also not that I mind that characterisation per se). I'm not even convinced I felt his final sacrifice to be motivated by *love*. It was a huge thing, I'm not trying to take away from that, but on the other hand, is it as huge when you don't believe you'll survive anyway to seek to make your death more meaningful / useful? (Serious question: does that lessen or increase or not change the significance of the act? It's a bit like the argument that there can be no altruism...)

I also never felt Harry had such a great ability to love. His treatment of Hermione can be... ouch, let's go with 'poor', his behaviour towards his other friends, Cho... He's not a generous person (by which I don't just mean financially). I don't see a wealth of love in his actions. (Again, not a condemnation of the character. On the contrary, I think it makes perfect sense given how he was raised.)

Isn't the 'amazing ability to love' just more of Dumbledore's crap? Just like: 'Severus, we shall sacrifice your soul, because it's of no import, but not Draco's, no no.' I always felt Albus says things to get *the response* he wants from people, not necessarily because he believes those things. (And even if he did, that doesn't make them true.)

I also don't think Dumbledore comes off as 'innately wonderful' in the books. Quite the opposite, because we're not given much of a chance to see Albus refute some of the things he said to Severus, he comes across as pretty terrible when you look behind the curtain. (Again, I'd bet the truth lies somewhere in between.) It's just that most people don't look behind that curtain. He's 'seen as the epitome of good' because he isn't truly *seen*.

I would, however, agree that's how a lot of characters (and readers) choose to see him. I think that was well presented, that some in 'verse people will be all about the Albus love. I find it a lot odder that many *readers* are. (But that effect helps explain how people can love the Marauders, which I'll never get...)

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The capacity for doing so makes you a better person, but not necessarily great or even good (that probably depends more on your morals and willingness to sacrifice vs. selfishness), and *actually* doing so depends on the circumstances of your life.

I agree and I wouldn't have a problem with this message if it was better encompassed in the books. However, I think love is connected with one's morality in the HP series, especially because characters are fixed to be what they're meant to be.

I often have trouble telling the difference between the text itself and what Rowling wanted us to interpret from the text. For example: Dumbledore, in the text, is a troubled individual who teamed up with Grindelwald not only because he was drawn to him, but also because he harbored some form of vengeful anger toward Muggles and bitterness over his family. It led to Ariana's death and a great deal of guilt on Dumbledore's part. He spent his life fixing his mistakes and became a better, but still very flawed, person after he cut ties with Grindelwald and defeated him.

However, I can't tell if JKR wants her readers to interpret Dumbledore as an innocent man led astray by a form of temptation (Grindelwald) rather than his own flaws as a person. It's okay Dumbledore teamed up with a racist man - he was fooled by love! It's okay Dumbledore goes on to become a ruthless manipulator in his life - he is doing it for the greater good! I think Dumbledore is seen as the epitome of good because JKR wants him to be seen that way and expects us to embrace Dumbledore as a quintessential wise and righteous mentor figure. Any grey morality he has as a character is hand waved away.

It's why Dumbledore is a strange case for me. He has the potential to be a compelling character if I got the sense that JKR meant for him to be fallible and not a figure of perfect goodness. But I don't think she had the guts to go there all the way with Dumbledore.

As for Voldemort, I think it's telling how JKR wanted the contrast between heroic Harry and his amazing ability to love vs Voldemort's incapability to love at all. Making Tom Riddle the stereotypical image of a psychopath is a part of it, but I think it renders both their characters down to nature rather than nurture. Of course Harry is going to turn out heroic - he can love! Of course Voldemort is the epitome of evil - he's a psychopath incapable of love! It's not their choices or actions as characters, but their inherent nature that matters more so. But I am very biased because I cannot stand it when a hero is presented as being inherently good no matter what, as well as a villain being inherently evil no matter what they choose either.

As for Harry, I never bought his amazing ability to love either, and that would be okay if he was presented as being a normal teenage boy instead of a Christ figure in DH. I'm not a religious person, but Jesus Christ is associated with compassion, mercy, and love for everyone, including those who do not "deserve" it. If Harry is meant to be Christ-like, then he should've been portrayed as more compassionate than average - or maturing to that point as a hero. His sacrifice can be seen that way, but his character overall doesn't strike me as showing great love to others. As you said, this makes sense for him. But again, it's another example for me in the difference between what the text shows versus what Rowling wants us to interpret from the text. Harry, to me, is a brave, caring, self-absorbed, and ordinary boy. But Rowling wants us to see someone who is extraordinary and "amazing" in his ability to love and sacrifice, and makes it clear that is what separates him from other characters as a hero.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

(But that effect helps explain how people can love the Marauders, which I'll never get...)

...Because it's okay to like the Gryffindor bad boys and bullies but not the Slytherin bad boys and bullies? ;)

I don't think the fandom has a lot of love for Peter, but James, Sirius, and Remus are adored because - just as with Dumbledore - I think Rowling wanted us to like them despite their faults. She made their flaws easily excusable. It also helps that Harry likes them too, making their negative attributes even more likely to be ignored in favor of their positive traits.

The funny thing is, I do like Remus and Sirius as characters, but I don't see them as squeaky clean good guys. It makes them more interesting that they aren't morally pure and have their downfalls as characters.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

And having thrown that out there, Imma now gonna try and answer my own question... Sorry it wasn't meant to be bait.

So... shower thoughts! (It was a long shower...) I think I have a few ideas.

'Because it's okay to like the Gryffindor bad boys and bullies but not the Slytherin bad boys and bullies? ;)

My knee jerk reaction is 'YES!', by that kind of thinking is just going to make me miserable, so it's time to but a bit of brain grease into it...

First:
'The funny thing is, I do like Remus and Sirius as characters, but I don't see them as squeaky clean good guys. It makes them more interesting that they aren't morally pure and have their downfalls as characters.'

I'd cosign that in a heartbeat. I'll make the added distinction that I like Sirius as a *character*, but not as an *individual*. He's good read, but not my idea of good fun, if that makes sense? I wouldn't want to know him, have him in my life, or in the lives of those near and dear (even if some of them *are* fictional characters... 😉), which is *prefect* in a book character, really. So so far, so good.

And you can like people despite their faults. You *should*, even. None of us are perfect, if we weren't able to see past faults, we'd all be alone.

I think part of the issue is most people HP fans *I know* weren't huge on DH. The earlier books and movies were read and watched more often, and that has a way of skewing how we view the story and the characters. And another substantial part is how we come to know them.

When we're first introduced to Remus, he saves Harry and seems an intelligent and nice guy. He's kind to Neville. (I side-eyed his making Severus the butt of more jokes as unprofessional, but he's new to the job and it built up a kid who desperately needed it.) We don't find out he's a weak man, a reckless one and a coward until much later. By that point, he's grown on us, and because Harry (and the books) don't focus much on his negative traits, we tend not to either.

Severus by contrast is a mean old unreasonable arse from the outset, and we focus on those traits a hell of a lot. He provokes and embarrasses Harry in front of his classmates (and many readers will remember how that feels only too well), which makes Harry's push back apparently cool / wish fulfillment. (Naturally, I side-eyed that as well... 😉)

But I think those first impressions go a long way to defining how some people continue to see them.

Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

And having thrown that out there, Imma now gonna try and answer my own question... Sorry it wasn't meant to be bait.

No need to apologize. Talking about how the books (and the fandom) differ in their portrayal of Gryffindors and Slytherins, as well as the Marauders and Snape, are some of my favorite things to discuss or read about pertaining to HP.

I'll make the added distinction that I like Sirius as a *character*, but not as an *individual*.

Same here. I find Sirius interesting, but I'm not sure I would like him in real life. To me, there's a clear difference between liking a fictional character and liking a real person. There are many fictional characters whom I would run in the opposite direction from if they were real. But since they're not real, I don't feel the need to judge them as potential friend or foe material. If they're entertaining, fascinating, or likable in the context of the story they inhabit, that's good enough for me.

And you can like people despite their faults. You *should*, even. None of us are perfect, if we weren't able to see past faults, we'd all be alone.

Well said. No one is perfect, nor should anyone be perfect. The world would be boring. :p And in fiction, characters that are written as flawless either bore me or irritate me. A character's flaws can make them interesting - or more interesting - just as their strengths do.

I think part of the issue is most people HP fans *I know* weren't huge on DH. The earlier books and movies were read and watched more often, and that has a way of skewing how we view the story and the characters. And another substantial part is how we come to know them.

You're correct about first impressions. They stick with you, and having the books be through Harry's eyes means it sticks with him too and it can be difficult to look past Harry's filter (I think JKR struggles with it as well since her views and Harry's often coincide, but that's just a vibe I get).

JKR loves Gryffindor - there's no doubt about that. Her love for Gryffindor wouldn't allow her to make her Gryffindor characters too messy or controversial in a significant way, unlike the Slytherins. (Peter is the exception, not the rule.)

And so, you have Remus who is passive-aggressive, weak-willed, desperate to be liked, cowardly, and reckless. But! It doesn't really matter because we often see him at his best, when he's kind, nurturing, sympathetic, humorous, and friendly with his students. Harry likes him, so we ought to like him too.

Same thing with Sirius. He's hot-headed, brash, immature, irresponsible, and remorseless about nearly injuring or killing a student (and risking his friend Remus in the process too). But! It doesn't really matter because we often see him at his best, when he's caring, protective, courageous, mischievous, and loyal to Harry (or James). Harry loves him, so we ought to love him too.

And Snape, well, he's meant to be an antagonist. We see him at his worst through Harry's eyes the majority of the time. He's mean, spiteful, cruel, and awful to Harry, Neville, and Hermione. He's not meant to be likable, and his flaws are not easily excused - they're up front and center to the point of being unapologetic. We only get to glimpse the better side of Snape once he's revealed to be loyal to Dumbledore all along.

Part 2

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

What intrigued me about Snape was his ability to be such a paradoxical mess. He's a bully and a hero. He's Harry's tormentor and his protector. He's mean and brave. He's hateful and faithful. He's a perpetrator of cruelty and a victim of cruelty. He exudes a composed surface while being intensely emotional. He's worked for the dark and the light. He's Neville's boggart, but is the same man who sends Neville to Hagrid so he won't be tortured. He's full of contradictions, and it's what caught my interest. In a weird way, his flaws being obvious made me like him more. The ambiguity and moral conflict surrounding his character made him one of the most challenging and captivating characters in the series.

Which is why I am so, so bitter over how JKR simplified his motivations and entire existence down to Lily. Snape had the potential for a great and complex redemption, but making it all about his love for Lily? I've tried my hardest in the past to find something to like about Lily being Snape's sole path to redemption and... I can't. Maybe I'll change my mind one day and see it from a different point of view.

Thank you for your comments again and for the discussion!

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

What's worse, as far as the issue of Albus' 'love' goes, for my money it's a question of having your cake and eating it, too. (I'd have *much* rather his being gay was canon. A single line would have done it.) In the HP books, the motive for the friendship with Grindelwald is presented more as a meeting of (bigoted) minds / thirst for power / desire for revenge against the muggles who destroyed his family than his love for Grindelwald. *That* comes from interviews/ Pottermore / and now (apparently) the latest series of movies.

I have to disagree about Snape. Too many things to go into, but I disagree that he didn't redeem himself. I guess it's a question of 'in whose eyes'? Do the characters have to see it that way for that to be the case? (And did they not? Harry does name a kid after him.) I certainly don't think you have to be a nice person to be heroic. (But then again, I think guilt plays a significant role in Snape's motives, not simply 'love'. That was reductive and simplistic and smacks of Harry's interpretation. And he'd be motivated to see it that way.)

'[It’s] also connected to who you are innately as a person.' Disagree. It's *not* connected to it except for the psychopath (by definition) being *incapable* of it. Basically *all* the characters you listed (including the Malfoys and Bellatrix) are *capable* of love. That obviously didn't make them good. That capability was only a redeeming characteristic, but I wouldn't capitalise the 'redeeming' in that sentence. And the reason for that is in opposition to your sense that their 'actions and choices' were immaterial, because those are exactly the reasons Snape is still a sarcastic and abusive arse, the Malfoy are bigoted hate-crime offenders [I don't have a good word for that, soz], and Bella is a sadistic maniac. Because they are.

The Malfoys also aren't forgiven for their actions because of their capacity to love. That forgiveness happens because Narcissa's love for her son makes her behave in a way that earns her that forgiveness. (Her motivations for helping Harry can be seen as selfish, but because it amounts to 'love' somehow that label doesn't quite stick.) But she doesn't do the right thing out of conviction, and she isn't really getting an in 'verse pass because she loves.

Not touching the Saint Lily love with a ten metre pole...

And keep in mind, Dumbles has *decades* to move past the Grindelwald affair. He's had a lot of time to try to atone and earn everyone's good (if uniformed) opinion. Had Snape lived, perhaps he'd have wrapped the universe around his finger, too. (LOL)

Thanks for posting. This was fun. 😊

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

(I'd have *much* rather his being gay was canon. A single line would have done it.) In the HP books, the motive for the friendship with Grindelwald is presented more as a meeting of (bigoted) minds / thirst for power / desire for revenge against the muggles who destroyed his family than his love for Grindelwald. *That* comes from interviews/ Pottermore / and now (apparently) the latest series of movies.

I completely agree with you. I do find it bothersome how the one example of same-sex attraction in the books revolves around a "wrongful" love. Dumbledore seemingly becomes celibate after his dangerous connection with Grindelwald. On the other hand, the copious amount of heterosexual romances in the books is thrown in your face in both serious and silly ways. (I don't think I'll ever stop poking fun at the ridiculousness of Harry's chest monster, to be honest.)

I have to disagree about Snape. Too many things to go into, but I disagree that he didn't redeem himself. I guess it's a question of 'in whose eyes'? Do the characters have to see it that way for that to be the case? (And did they not? Harry does name a kid after him.) I certainly don't think you have to be a nice person to be heroic. (But then again, I think guilt plays a significant role in Snape's motives, not simply 'love'. That was reductive and simplistic and smacks of Harry's interpretation. And he'd be motivated to see it that way.)

I think Snape was forgiven, but not redeemed. Or rather, if he was redeemed, I don't think JKR did a great job with it. Snape was one of my favorite characters from the books (and still is, in a way) but I believe he was diminished by having his sole motivation be all about Lily. I think JKR wants us to believe everything he's done was for Lily's sake only. If it were not for her safety being threatened, he would still be a Death Eater. If Snape was redeemed, it was not because of his own qualities and actions as a person - it's because of Lily. I don't find that to be a well-written redemption arc, but unfortunately, I think it's entirely what JKR intended. If it weren't for his undying love for a dead woman, Snape would have zero redeeming qualities of his own. Having everything come down to loving a pure Gryffindor to make Snape "better" leaves me annoyed and disappointed rather than moved or impressed.

And I suppose it affects my opinion of love overall being a major theme in the books. As you've said, I don't think the capacity for love makes a person morally good. But, loving someone is treated as a big deal in JKR's world. It may not make a character a good person, but love is worthy of praise in itself. Love is treated as the most important thing.

To sum it up: I would've found it more meaningful of a message if it were one's choices - regardless if a person loves someone or not - to be important. Having so much hinge upon love or the ability to love makes it simplistic, in my opinion. I think JKR gave lip service to "choices" being significant in her books, but her characters are fated to be the way they intrinsically are from beginning to end. Harry is meant to be the self-sacrificial loving hero. Dumbledore is meant to be the epitome of good regardless of his love for Grindelwald. Snape is meant to be a horrible person with an ounce of goodness because of his love for Lily. The Malfoys are meant to be selfish cowards with an ounce of goodness because of their love for one another.

Ahh, I'm all over the place in my thoughts, I apologize. I'm not in the best head space right now, but I appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the time to write an eloquent and interesting response!

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. I do find it bothersome how the one example of same-sex attraction in the books revolves around a "wrongful" love.'

Yes! This! ❤️ While I'm a proponent of: there is no equality until *everyone* can also be treated equally *poorly* (life!); you are *so* right: when it's *the only example*, you really have to say 'ouch' that she went there.

(I do love the chest monster. Heh.)

Okay, I think I understand your distinction as far as Snape goes. It cheapened his sacrifices for you, so you don't see them as positively as you otherwise would have done given a different motive. Correct? (If so, question: aren't the behaviour and his actions more important than his motives in light of the magnitude of that sacrifice? Because in Harry's case you objected to his actions not being more important... Why wouldn't that also be true for Snape?)

I'm not a fan of trying to argue what JKR intended or not, because, who knows, interviews are also about product pitching and people pleasing, and even if she appeared before me tomorrow and swore up and down that was the point of the scene, I probably wouldn't necessarily believe it. The books were long enough and years in the making. She had editors but also enough power towards the end there that anything that *had* to be in there probably was. Anyway, there are enough 'cake having and eating it too' things that convince me that's the case (Albus is gay, Hermione's parents; way to not take a stand Jo...).

I'd argue Snape and Albus are both presented as good because they work tirelessly to make up for the bad choices of their youths. It can also be argued that both choices were in part due to their having been in love, but I don't feel canon makes that out to be the sole reason for either of them. Albus has the advantage of the average person not being aware of his failings. Severus does not. And Albus has far more time to atone and make up for his mistakes than Severus does. Albus is also more of a people person. Makes a huge difference in how he's perceived.

'I suppose it affects my opinion of love overall being a major theme in the books.'

So, do me a favour and let's take Snape out of the equation for a bit.

If you *ignore* Snape when it comes to examples of love in the story (just roll with it), wouldn't your own examples show that love doesn't serve the purpose in the story you worry it does?

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm not as cynical as I should be, but I do think JKR had her heart in the right place when she confirmed Dumbledore as gay. But it would've taken real guts to actually show it in the books and not in the form of a disastrous entanglement. Having a multitude of heterosexual romances but only one celibate gay character who was tempted by an ultimate bad boy until he resisted and fought him is... not a great example of same-sex romance. There was no equality in straight and gay representation in the books.

Okay, I think I understand your distinction as far as Snape goes. It cheapened his sacrifices for you, so you don't see them as positively as you otherwise would have done given a different motive. Correct? (If so, question: aren't the behaviour and his actions more important than his motives in light of the magnitude of that sacrifice? Because in Harry's case you objected to his actions not being more important... Why wouldn't that also be true for Snape?)

Yes, you're correct. The reveal of his love for Lily being his sole motivation to attempt to do good did not appeal to me at all. I still find his actions to be courageous and significant to the story - I have no trouble with that. I suppose my trouble lies with JKR again and how she insists everything Snape did was for Lily's sake and only for her. She makes Lily such a big part of Snape's psyche as a character that it's hard not to look at his actions without seeing the motives (or one motive in this case) behind it.

I do have a (potentially?) bad tendency to wonder what the author intended after reading a book. I can have my own interpretations and analysis, but I still consider what the creator meant to convey from their end too. This is why I try to get into JKR's mindset, for better or for worse. :P

I'd argue Snape and Albus are both presented as good because they work tirelessly to make up for the bad choices of their youths. It can also be argued that both choices were in part due to their having been in love, but I don't feel canon makes that out to be the sole reason for either of them. Albus has the advantage of the average person not being aware of his failings. Severus does not. And Albus has far more time to atone and make up for his mistakes than Severus does. Albus is also more of a people person. Makes a huge difference in how he's perceived.

I agree Dumbledore had far more advantages than Snape did at his disposal. I also agree Dumbledore and Snape worked hard to atone for their sins. But... I do think JKR meant Snape's love for Lily to be a sole reason for his change from loyal Death Eater to loyal agent for Dumbledore. Snape isn't shown to question the DEs and Voldemort before Lily is threatened. He was willing to let Lily's infant son die in exchange for Lily's safety. Snape leaves Voldemort, starts working for Dumbledore, and strives to be better only after Lily is killed; he would have never cared otherwise - I think this is what JKR portrayed in canon, as much as it pains me to see it. And, as I've said above, JKR makes Snape's love for Lily such a big part of his character that it's difficult to disentangle his devotion to her from his actions. It does greatly color my perception of him, and I say that as someone who liked Snape in books 1-6.

If you *ignore* Snape when it comes to examples of love in the story (just roll with it), wouldn't your own examples show that love doesn't serve the purpose in the story you worry it does?

Hmm, I would still be disappointed with how static the characters seem. However, I might not perceive love to be so closely linked with morality in the books. It would be another "feel good" message to have in a children's tale rather than something trying to send a complicated message to make the story deeper than it is.

The Daily Snitch: Friday February 8, 2019

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User frnklymrshnkly referenced to your post from The Daily Snitch: Friday February 8, 2019 (https://daily-snitch.livejournal.com/1009445.html) saying: [...] • posted an essay, Love in HP [...]

[sunnyskywalker]

I wonder whether Harry being more or less capable of empathy and friendship despite his upbringing means he started with a higher-than-average capacity for love? Rather than him actually showing it by the time he starts Hogwarts, I mean. It's only because he started off with the higher capacity that he has any left after it's badly damaged.

Er, not that that's what Dumbledore meant, probably, but it's about the only way I can see it being true.

I think overall, the books are very muddled about love and what it means. They try for "love is great and redemptive," but... well, you point out Bella's love for Voldemort. Maybe if she'd loved him less, she'd have done less harm. Or maybe her status-obsessed pureblood family deprived of real love, pushed her into a loveless marriage, and so she was vulnerable to the first charismatic person who gave her an illusion of love--maybe if she'd had real love earlier, she'd have turned out better. But that leads you to the question of whether what she felt for Voldemort was "really" love, and what is love exactly anyway... Ugh, it's a huge topic.

As for Snape, again, it kind of depends on how you frame it. Love made him take actions which ultimately saved a lot of lives. On the other hand, in order to do that, he spent years doing things like threatening kids with the possibility that he would make them poison their own pets as a class demonstration, and probably scared a lot of kids off potions as a subject who might otherwise have contributed to the field. How do you weigh the costs and benefits? It's not really a mathematically precise situation. And if he'd run off to New Zealand and worked in a researcher with some nice people who showed him professional respect, he probably would have become a nicer person who invented healing potions that saved lots of lives or something like that. How do you weigh that (possible) outcome against the people who would have died if he hadn't stayed in Britain?

I don't know that JKR really had a clear message here, unless it's that people are messy and complicated and you sometimes you never know whether you've made the right choice. Not that the epilogue supports that interpretation...

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The answer I typically see from others on what separates Harry from Tom Riddle (and Snape) is Harry found love and friendship at Hogwarts and it helped with his ability to care for others. His guardians at home were horrible, but Harry had genuine friends and a sense of belonging in the Wizarding world. Harry experienced abuse at home and dangerous encounters at school, but he had his friends, surrogate family, and mentor figures to back him up and provide support.

I still think JKR did not portray the abuse by the Dusleys in a serious manner in the earlier books, and the tone of the earlier books contrasted with the later ones. I also think Harry should've been far more damaged than he was with all the abuse and harrowing near-death experiences he went through. Nonetheless, I can concede on the argument that Harry had people who loved and cared for him and this influenced his ability to love others as well. (Although, I still also believe it's too convenient to have a hero who is innately extraordinary in his ability to love rather than showing it through his choices as a character.)

As for Bellatrix, I'm sure the answer can go either way. She loved Voldemort, but Voldemort is the wrong type of person to love; therefore, any love she has for him will be toxic and dangerous. On the other hand, you can argue Bellatrix had more of a cult-like devotion and loyalty to Voldemort rather than true love.

As for Snape, I agree with you it depends on how you frame it. I've seen enough arguments on both ends of the spectrum - pro redemption and anti redemption - on whether Snape truly changed for the better. As I've said, I go back and forth, but I suppose my ultimate stance is this: Snape was forgiven but not redeemed, and if he was redeemed by love, I don't think it was done well.

I think Snape's love for Lily changed him for the better in only one way: it made him defect from Voldemort. That's it. Otherwise, I think his love for Lily kept him stuck in the past - incapable of changing, healing, or moving on with his life. Not only did he remain bitter and cruel, but he was a Dead Man Walking the moment Lily died too. This is why the whole "Snape loves Lily" plot makes him a pitiful and tragic figure in my eyes; still heroic and brave, but stagnant and demolished too.

Before DH, I thought Snape was a survivor; a man who will follow orders and fight for the light, but with full intentions of watching out for himself to the bitter end. Well, DH made me change my mind. I don't think Snape was a survivor. I think his devotion to Lily was all that kept him going and all that he cared about. That's not an example of redemptive love at all to me, but opinions will vary (as they always do when it comes to Snape, ha).

Edit: One last thought - I also think Snape wasn't redeemed by his love for Lily because his love for Lily says less good things about him and more good things about her.

It's another example of how magnificent Lily is. Her existence was such a blessing that she managed to instill a degree of goodness in a terrible cruel bastard of a man. No one was capable of influencing Snape for the better without manipulation or persuasion - no one other than Lily. Even in death, she's a Savior figure to both the hero (Harry) and the guilt-ridden sinner (Snape).

As you can tell, I have a lot of biased negative views on how Snape's possible redemption was handled, and this influences my perception of it. Maybe JKR really was going for a romantic and moving story with Snape/Lily and how he was redeemed because he had a faithful and utmost true love for her, but eh.... It's clearly not for me.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

You're right, Harry has people who stick to him even when he's an arse. In addition to mentors and a support network, he has people who don't desert the friendship. No matter who's to blame for the problems, Ron and Hermione ultimately stick by him when the going gets tough. He also learns his family loved him enough to die for him. Riddle on the other hand comes to learn his father *didn't* want him *at all*. I imagine Snape had similar experiences. We don't really see enough of Riddle's school life to say much about his friendships, but we know the devastating effect Lily's rejection had on Severus.

So where Harry is and was valued, Snape, at the least, wasn't.

But that's only the beginning.

I'd say there are some other key differences (in addition to Riddle's psychopathy). For one thing, before ever reaching Hogwarts, Harry learns he's a child of means. Riddle and Snape aren't. There's less security there, more need to make do and make opportunities, more pressure to take what's available. They're also both more ambitious than Harry. Compare that to Harry. When his only expressed desire for the future comes under threat (his O.W.L. wasn't good enough to take N.E.W.T. Potions, and he needed five N.E.W.T.s to become an auror), instead of taking CMC and *working* for it, he sits around feeling sorry for himself instead. (Seriously? *Great* choice, Harry.)

Riddle and Snape can't afford such indulgences. When Riddle hears the school might close and he'd have to go back to the orphanage, he *scrambles*. (Admittedly he's a murderous bastard, but that isn't the point.)

Harry is also a celebrity from day one. Not that he necessarily wants to be, but he doesn't have to work to achieve the things the other two want. Fame and Fortune? He *has* them. Subsequently, he also has an opportunity to realise that fame isn't everything it's cracked up to be. If anything, perhaps it serves to make his ambitions more modest?


I agree JKR scaled up the age range of the material, and I loved it, but that also means certain things can't be graded on the same scale. We have to go back and look at them through a different lens to analyse them.

It is what it is, but I think it made for a nice experiment.

'I still also believe it's too convenient to have a hero who is innately extraordinary in his ability to love rather than showing it through his choices as a character.'

I don't think that's ever shown that he *is* innately extraordinary (either passively or actively). He's *screwed*, and he makes the best of a bad situation, and happens to survive against the odds, largely because he chose to make the best of it for everyone. Not trying to be a muppet here, but can you point me to where he's canonically 'extraordinary' other than in Albus' untrustworthy blah blah? (I trust Albus about as far as I can throw him.)

'I also think Harry should've been far more damaged than he was with all the abuse and harrowing near-death experiences he went through.'

Yes and no. I'd have expected him not to give Snape lip in the first class because of that, but I've also seen enough people to survive crap take further crap situations in their stride. They don't get thrown as easily.

And back to you... 😉

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Yes, Harry, despite his numerous hardships, has great advantages too. The love of his friends and mentor figures, his wealth, his fame, the knowledge that his parents were brave people who loved him, etc. He has a lot of bad luck, but a lot of good luck to counteract it.

Snape and Riddle did not have as many advantages to fall back on in life. There was no loving surrogate family to embrace them in place of their troubled family life. Harry had the Dursleys, but he had Ron, Hermione, the Weasley family, Dumbledore, Sirius, and many more people who supported and cherished him to the end.

I agree Harry doesn't show much ambition in work and academics. I think his drive and determination comes through when he's solving the latest mystery or undertaking a risky adventure. Harry is courageous in the face of life-threatening danger, but he's lazy when it comes to schoolwork and everyday tasks. :p In the daily drudges of life, his ambitions do seem more modest in comparison.

As for Harry being innately extraordinary, I do think it's largely through Dumbledore's words in HBP of Harry having never been tempted by the Dark Arts, being remarkable enough to face Voldemort, being protected by his amazing ability to love, etc etc.

Not trying to be a muppet here, but can you point me to where he's canonically 'extraordinary' other than in Albus' untrustworthy blah blah? (I trust Albus about as far as I can throw him.)

But that's the thing - in canon, would I say Harry shows how extraordinary he is on a regular basis? No. Other than being exceptional at Quidditch and having heaps of luck to escape dangerous situations over and over, I don't think Harry is super extraordinary. Yet, I think JKR meant for readers to see him as extraordinary regardless because of his status as the hero who loves in opposition with Voldemort the villain who can't love. That in itself is depicted as "extraordinary".

And maybe "damaged" was the wrong word for me to use. "Changed" would've been better. I think Harry should've changed as a person with all the things he did and went through. One example which immediately comes to mind is the aftermath of Harry's dash to the Ministry in OOTP. I don't get the sense from the books that Harry learned much from his recklessness. He blamed Sirius' death on Snape, disbanded the DA, and spent more time worrying about Quidditch and chest monsters in HBP than considering the consequences of his actions.

Another example is when he nearly kills Draco (and nearly killing someone would shake up any average person). But Harry is more concerned about getting detention for the rest of the year than the fact that he almost sliced someone to death. Even if Harry wasn't damaged by all the horrors in his life, I wish he'd at least be deeply affected by them beyond 5 minutes.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think the only way Dumbledore's claim about Harry can be true is if an average person in Harry's situation would have ended up more like Tom, so Harry not doing so (and turning out average-ish to slightly troubled instead) is extraordinary. So, he doesn't act more extraordinarily loving than anyone else, but just making it to where he is was extraordinary.

Though if that's what Dumbledore meant, he's saying it in a way he ought to know will be misinterpreted. That's Dumbledore for you...

Not to mention, you're right that Harry had advantages Tom and Severus never had, including money, fame, friends who stick by him even when he's a jerk, and that first fifteen months of being loved before ending up with bad guardians. So it isn't really a fair comparison. It seems more like what's happening is that if you treat kids better and give them more security, they turn out better. So... maybe work on that and there will be fewer bullies and dark lords, right, wizarding world?

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Warning: disorganised ramble ahead.

Tom, as you say, was doomed from the minute he was cast as a villain. This, I think, is because JKR does not see *any* of her characters (except perhaps Dumbledore) as complex, flawed individuals.

Tom is evidently meant to show signs of ASPD as a child and teenager (hurting people and animals, being charming). And this, I think, JKR does do well — people with ASPD and/or narcissism have very little capacity for love. But it would have been more apparent had Tom gone on to lead a normal (whether wizarding or Muggle) life. Instead, he became Voldemort.

There is a fundamental disconnect between Tom Riddle, who so captivated Slughorn, and Lord Voldemort, the cartoonish villain of Harry’s acquaintance. LV acts erratically, and illogically.

1. Instead of rounding up Muggles and killing them, or becoming a serial killer in the usual sense of the word, he decides to seek immortality.
2. He not only goes after the Potters in a theatrical manner, he tells Lily three times to step aside. Really, he should have just Crucio’d and then AK’d her.
3. Why set such stock in a prophecy? They don’t have to come true. I’ve realised I hate prophecies because, 90% of the time, they’re a plot device.
4. Why not kill Neville?
5. Why not have your minions kill or capture Harry Potter, if you are so hellbent on eliminating him? For that matter, why not magically bomb Godric’s Hollow to make sure you’ve really killed your would-be vanquisher?
6. Why does LV reincarnate as this weird red-eyed monster? I get that losing his soul has pushed him further from humanity, but maybe JKR thought that having him fade away into a spirit again, in conjunction with the Horcruxes’ destruction, might be too reminiscent of Sauron and the One Ring (having said that, LoTR itself draws heavily from Norse myth, among other things).
7. Two negatives don’t equal a positive. It is possible to be capable of authentic/real love but use it to the wrong ends. Credit to JKR, she would have done this well had Grindelwald and Albus actually been portrayed as lovers in canon, rather than allies. I think Snape is also supposed to be an example of this, except that his motivation is totally unrealistic.
8. What does being unable to feel love (and the so-called power of love) have to do with any of this? Empathy, yes, I can understand - but love? People didn’t defeat Hitler with ~love vibes~, but with armies. How exactly (and why?) does Lily’s sacrifice activate the magical force field around Quirrell? Are Harry and/or Lily that powerful? Is it a mother-son thing? A freak accident? Genetic? Is there some gene in Harry that triggers that reaction?

Now we come to Harry. I could understand his being a hero if Harry had actually *done* something - if he’d been a child prodigy who used his powers to invent a novel way to kill Voldemort, or, as in the Sacrifices arc, his love had been directed towards a particular person or thing outside of himself.

But he is not even particularly loving towards *himself*, never mind other people. He doesn’t exhibit many virtues save that of bravery; he doesn’t learn to temper his recklessness, he is lazy when it comes to schoolwork and he is frequently downright belligerent with his supposed best friends. He does not show restraint in eating (frequently stuffing himself stupid along with Ron), and rather than recruit him as an ally, he immediately judges Malfoy as being worse than Dudley (!) on the basis of a couple of criticisms about Ron. In fact, he judges all his Slytherin peers as irredeemable and never alters his view.

Now, I have no issue with the above traits in a protagonist as long as they are clearly treated as being negative. But the narration never questions his actions or attitudes, and readers are meant to believe they’re justified because Harry is Inherently Good — *not* because, say, he’s been abused and deprived of food and love as a child, which would make sense, but because he is The Hero and his worldview, by definition, cannot be wrong except when required by the plot.

He also, as others have pointed out, hates Snape throughout the series until the Lily!infatuation redeems him in his eyes.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

On Friendship:

Ron and Hermione, meanwhile, do try to show Harry acceptance at some points in the series, but as they are (in effect) his sidekicks, and secondary characters, this is rarely a relationship of equals. They do the same things he does; all three involve themselves in the same quests which have the same objectives (defeat Voldemort).

The closest we get is Book One, where all three demonstrate selfless bravery in order to rescue the others (Harry by taking down the troll, Hermione by risking trouble saving Harry from ‘Snape’ during the match, and Ron by sacrificing himself during the chess game). Harry seems happier in that book, and more generous; he buys sweets for Ron, Neville and Hermione, and is more than glad to share them around.

In PS their friendship is purer; by CoS it is becoming a sort of paint-by-numbers adventure series. Ron becomes The Sidekick, and Hermione The Nerd/the infodump.

Hermione does try to inculcate good study habits into him, but this is brushed off as nagging; and we never see a counter from Harry. He never points out - gently - that perhaps she is a bit too exacting; nor do he or Ron ever attempt to correct their study habits. Conversely, we don’t see any change in Hermione’s behaviour either. She fails to grow out of her know it all manner and try to make other friends outside the Golden Trio. If anything, the three can’t be said to be friends at the end of the series.

The R/Hr/H (friendship) moment that stands out most in the later books is in OotP, where Ron and Hermione make Murtlap Essence for Harry in book 5 (he repays them by ranting about Sirius Black, without a hint of gratitude). Much of the rest of the later books involves them bickering or Harry capslocking - or Hermione committing egregious crimes.

In fairness, Harry does start up the DA, which is a brave thing to do. But starting up a group to protest against unfair rules is motivated as much by indignation as by any concern for others. In fact, perhaps because it’s Rowling, the DA chapters in OotP smack much more of “But it’s not fair!” than the sort of discipline, vision or self-sacrifice that motivates a good leader. If we think of the Harry in the Sacrifices Arc, we can see that that Harry truly cares about people. Canon!Harry’s “saving people thing” is just that - it is not real sacrifice because it doesn’t spring from real love. Yes, it may come from a desire to get people out of danger, but the emotionally stunted Harry we see throughout the series is incapable of selfless love for all humanity and all sentient creatures. He is not incapable of any finer feelings whatsoever, but nor is he the leader the WW is looking for. He has little training and even less prudence. Not only does he never seek out extra training, he slacks off in his normal classes too. As he himself points out, half his encounters with LV are fuelled by pure luck, and this manifests itself again when Rowling needs to resort to a lucky potion because she’s realised her hero can’t hold his own against an experienced teacher.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Harry doesn’t make any attempt to get along with Snape during Occlumency and actually intrudes upon his privacy. To be fair, as written, Snape went about it in a horribly invasive way. Had Rowling not written him as an awful teacher, this might have actually been an enjoyable reading experience.

Harry’s pity towards Luna at her father’s house (DH) is not love, either, strictly speaking. It is a sort of superiority. I think it’s meant to be read as empathy, but it comes off as shallow when he has done very little to get to know her over the years. She is always the Manic Pixie Girl, the “comic” relief, relegated to the sidelines.

What of Sirius? Harry obviously enjoys Sirius’ company a great deal, and he clearly cares about him. But Sirius is always avuncular, and he is one of the closest people Harry has had to a parent. Never mind that he isn’t a fit guardian, he’s better than the Dursleys and he seems to have Harry’s best interests at heart. But what, ultimately, does his death teach Harry?

Harry’s “saving people thing” is motivated by recklessness and impulsivity. It may also be a result of trauma - how, I have no idea.

As for Dumbledore, Harry idolises him. Why, I don’t know. Probably because he is genial and “twinkling”. But Dumbledore has done very little for him. In fact, his decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys:

a) emotionally stunts Harry, or at least doesn’t do anything to teach him about healthy relationships
b) damages Harry’s chances to learn magic outside of school
c) puts paid to his chances of being a leader.

So what is the real redemptive power of love in the series? Not much. There are very few real, positive instances of love-as-saving -grace in the series.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Harry doesn’t make any attempt to get along with Snape during Occlumency and actually intrudes upon his privacy. To be fair, as written, Snape went about it in a horribly invasive way. Had Rowling not written him as an awful teacher, this might have actually been an enjoyable reading experience.

This makes me wonder, what was the ultimate point of the Occlumency lessons in the long-run? To heighten Voldemort as a threat if Harry leaves his mind wide open? Harry ends up defeating Voldemort without the help of Occlumency, so it didn't matter all that much for him to learn it.

Or were the lessons meant to tell us how awful of a teacher Snape is? We knew that already. To tell us how Snape and Harry can't get along? We knew that already too. And Harry looking in the Pensieve didn't make much of a difference either. He is disturbed by his father's actions for about 5 minutes and then moves on with his life. It doesn't change Harry's perception of Snape, the Marauders, his parents, and so forth. Everything stays the same.

[Luna] is always the Manic Pixie Girl, the “comic” relief, relegated to the sidelines.

I like Luna, but you're right. Luna is the adorable yet peculiar girl who isn't too significant to the overall plot. At least she gave some extra page time for Ravenclaws and had three or so nice moments with Harry.

But what, ultimately, does [Sirius'] death teach Harry?

I'd say: absolutely nothing. Harry's lack of reflection after the Ministry incident in OOTP was a major disappointment.

As for Dumbledore, Harry idolises him. Why, I don’t know. Probably because he is genial and “twinkling”.

It makes sense to me why a Harry as a child would look up to Dumbledore and see him as impeccable. He is presented as a grandfatherly figure who offers advice, refuge, and prestige within the Wizarding world. But Harry as a young adult should've have grown beyond Dumbledore's influence. In a coming-of-age story, the protagonist is supposed to mature beyond the guidance of their mentor figure and stop seeing them as foolproof. Harry never gets there. He continues to be Dumbledore's follower instead of his own man. It's why I was not impressed with JKR attempting to give Dumbledore shades of grey; Harry forgives him in seconds and it doesn't offer any long-lasting effects. Dumbledore's shadier qualities are swept under the rug and deemed irrelevant in Harry's eyes.

So what is the real redemptive power of love in the series? Not much. There are very few real, positive instances of love-as-saving -grace in the series.

I think JKR was going for love as redemptive, but it's a debate whether she succeeded or failed to show it properly in the text itself.

Thank you for your comments! You've raised thought-provoking questions and answers for this topic.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The friendship among the trio is, admittedly for me, one of the positive parts of the books because I do find their dynamic endearing sometimes. Nonetheless, there are fair criticisms to make, such as Hermione being used as a convenient info-dump, and Ron being written as too ordinary in comparison to Harry and Hermione. I also think their friendship was purer and more believable in PS/SS. JKR did a good job, in my opinion, of creating a warm and innocent atmosphere within the trio while showing their strengths separate from one another in the first book.

But as the books went on, it does seem like Ron and Hermione exist to serve Harry with little reciprocation. Ron provides Harry with the family Harry always dreamed of, and Hermione provides Harry with necessary help and knowledge on their adventures. I do think the three of them care deeply for one another from beginning to end, but they all suffer from a lack of development as individuals. If anything, I think Ron potentially changes the most out of the three.

Canon!Harry’s “saving people thing” is just that - it is not real sacrifice because it doesn’t spring from real love. Yes, it may come from a desire to get people out of danger, but the emotionally stunted Harry we see throughout the series is incapable of selfless love for all humanity and all sentient creatures.

Yes, I wouldn't describe Harry as defined by his all-embracing love for humanity. He cares for his friends, chosen family figures, and the people he likes. He is perfectly normal in that sense. But I never saw him as a Christ figure who extends his compassion towards his fellow man out of selflessness - no matter their background. I think JKR wished for her readers to see him that way and wrote his sacrifice in DH to hammer it home. But even then, it's another example of Harry blindly following Dumbledore's orders to get rid of the horcrux within him. It's not a sacrifice based on love for humanity alone. But I'm probably being too hard on Harry here because I thought his sacrifice and return to life was foreseeable. And the specters of his parents urging him to his death was creepy rather than moving for me....

Overall, I agree Harry primarily runs on luck, impulse, plot armor, and the dependence/convenience on other people in his life to guide him. Even the DA wasn't entirely made of Harry's own choice - Hermione was the one who initiated it, if I remember correctly. And it was disbanded in HBP because...it wouldn't benefit the plot anymore, I guess.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

To be fair, although I’m no longer rabidly into the books (I’ve more or less outgrown them, even the earlier ones), there are some lovely moments in PS in particular. I think Snape’s introductory speech is one of the best pieces of writing in the whole series, and the puzzle sequence at the end is clever. It’s much more whimsical than the rest of the series.

Part of the reason I don’t buy their friendship is that I probably need to reread the books. :P Harry and Ron’s first Christmas morning at Hogwarts, for instance, is also lovely. But there are less of these quiet moments throughout the books, and I’m willing to bet that we see Harry comforting and standing by Ron less than the opposite (Ron standing by him).

But even then, it's another example of Harry blindly following Dumbledore's orders to get rid of the horcrux within him. It's not a sacrifice based on love for humanity alone. [...] And the specters of his parents urging him to his death was creepy rather than moving for me....

I entirely agree. I didn’t predict Harry’s death and resurrection, though. Speaking of, Christ went through an enormous amount of pain on the cross. His agony was palpable and he reacted to it in an entirely appropriate way. What does Harry go through? Yes, he goes through abuse, but his actual death is just a standard battle. Resurrecting him certainly won’t suddenly make him the Christ figure of the series.

Even the DA wasn't entirely made of Harry's own choice - Hermione was the one who initiated it, if I remember correctly. And it was disbanded in HBP because...it wouldn't benefit the plot anymore, I guess.

That’s an excellent point about the DA. It could’ve been used to unite the school and fight LV, especially given all the Sorting Hat’s warnings about uniting or “crumbling from within”, but instead it is just more clumsy anti-Slytherin fodder. Harry does little if anything to entice Slytherin members into the DA.

The Marietta thing could also have been handled much better - in fact, it needn’t have happened at all.

As others have pointed out, Hermione never actually stops and reflects on her behaviour towards Marietta. Having your protagonist commit an immoral act and never be changed by it is... sort of pointless and makes the character come off as sociopathic. I know people disapprove of her Memory Charms in DH, but at least she was affected by those.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

You make a lot of great points here, especially concerning Voldemort and Harry.

There is a fundamental disconnect between Tom Riddle, who so captivated Slughorn, and Lord Voldemort, the cartoonish villain of Harry’s acquaintance. LV acts erratically, and illogically.

Yes, I almost think of Riddle and Voldemort as two separate entities, although they're the same person. Riddle the person was more interesting to me than his resurrection as Voldemort.

Many of the questions you ask are similar to the ones I've wondered about as well. I think you answered them in a way by mentioning this:

Tom, as you say, was doomed from the minute he was cast as a villain. This, I think, is because JKR does not see *any* of her characters (except perhaps Dumbledore) as complex, flawed individuals.

I think JKR wanted to play around with the potential for complexity in her characters, but failed to go all the way with the majority of them. She tells rather than shows, and falls back on simple black and white categorizing to make things convenient. I think she came close with Dumbledore and Snape as the two most complex characters in the series, but failed to give them complete depth too. Dumbledore's dubious morals ended up meaning nothing - he gets regulated back to the kindly mentor figure regardless of his ruthlessness and manipulation. And Snape? His entire morally conflicted existence is condensed into his love for Lily.

As for Voldemort, I don't think JKR wished for him too be too complicated of a villain. He seems pretty standard to me: narcissistic, power-hungry, incapable of love, obsessed with living forever, more monstrous than human, etc. Add in prejudice intermixed with fantasy world racism and Voldemort is all around standard. Let's throw in some creepy snake-like imagery too because, as everyone knows, snakes are evil.

Voldemort, just as many other of JKR's characters, is written more like a plot device. The characters exist to fulfill a role the plot needs in the moment. Voldemort will be a formidable and threatening monster in one moment, then an incompetent and illogical cardboard villain in another.

As for Harry:

But the narration never questions his actions or attitudes, and readers are meant to believe they’re justified because Harry is Inherently Good — *not* because, say, he’s been abused and deprived of food and love as a child, which would make sense, but because he is The Hero and his worldview, by definition, cannot be wrong except when required by the plot.

I'm with you here. I wouldn't have a problem with Harry's flaws - his rash judgment, impulsiveness, passivity, etc. - if he grew as a character and learned from his mistakes. Instead, he remains relatively the same. As I've discussed with members above, I don't think Harry in canon is shown as an all loving compassionate figure, but I think JKR wanted us to see him that way and persisted in telling us how his ability to love is ultra-special in comparison to Voldemort's inability to love. It's a typical Innately Good Hero vs. Innately Evil Villain showdown.

He also, as others have pointed out, hates Snape throughout the series until the Lily!infatuation redeems him in his eyes.

This is perhaps wishful thinking on my part, but I'd like to think Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and his bravery were more influential in earning Harry's forgiveness rather than his infatuation for Lily. Otherwise, it makes no damn sense to me how a teenage boy wouldn't be weirded out by the man they hated being obsessed with their dead mom. If Harry were a normal teenage boy, he'd be furious or grossed out knowing another man was so stuck on his mom and doing everything only for her. Then again, Harry admires his parents and never grows past his child-like idolization of them, so maybe it really is as simple as "Snape loved my mom? Oh, I guess he's all right now."

Or maybe it's another example of JKR telling us how perfect Lily Evans was. Anyone obsessed with her deserves some recognition since Lily is so flawless. -_-

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/telling us how his ability to love is ultra-special in comparison to Voldemort's inability to love/

I think that the issue with what the books were telling and showing about Harry's love can be summed up in one word: Snape.

I think that you're right about Voldemort being written more like a plot device, especially when you notice the difference between how he's treated by Harry versus how Snape is treated. Voldemort killed Harry's parents, which resulted in Harry being sent to live with the Dursleys, who treated him badly. Voldemort's campaign of terror involves the persecution and murder of Muggle-borns, which resulted in one of Harry's best friends being attacked in his second year. Voldemort inspired his followers to commit horrible acts in his name, which include the torture of the Longbottoms and Peter's betrayal of the Potters, which led to the Potters' deaths and Sirius's imprisonment.

Yet how many times does Harry feel a surge of righteous rage towards him? How many times does Harry fixate on Tom and blame him for everything wrong in his life? Yes, he sometimes thinks about how it's due to Voldemort that he has to live with the Dursleys and how Voldemort ruined many lives. But does he think of such things with the same seething hatred that he reserves for Snape? Pettigrew was the one who betrayed Harry's parents, leading to their deaths. How often does Harry think about him?

And even if you can make the case that those things all happened when Harry was a baby, then what about Bellatrix? She killed Sirius, whom Harry was old enough to know and love. Yet how many times does Harry curse her name? Sure, he tries to cast the Cruciatus Curse at her instantly after Sirius dies, but afterwards? When he sees her dueling Molly, does he feel an instinctive rush of hatred for her? No.

Instead, who gets the brunt of Harry's hatred? Snape. Peter betrayed the Potters and Voldemort killed them, but let's hate Snape for leaking the prophecy. Bellatrix killed Sirius, but let's hate Snape for sneering at him.

And what were Snape's crimes? What did he do to earn Harry's hatred, to rank below a traitor and a genocidal despot and a murderous fanatic?

He sneered at Harry and embarrassed him in class. Which is not nice and I wouldn't want Snape as my teacher, but...really, this is the boy who's supposed to teach Voldemort about love? A boy who cares more about a mean teacher taking points than a psychopath who wants him dead? Who cares more about a jerk who gives him detention than the people who killed his loved ones?

One reason that the HP fandom hated Umbridge more than Voldemort was because Umbridge was more in Harry's face than Tom was, but at least Umbridge actually did terrible things. She forced Harry to carve words onto his skin and tried to shut him up. And yet she's a one-book menace who briefly comes back to cause trouble in DH, but is quickly dealt with, while Snape earns Harry's undying hatred book after book simply for being unpleasant.

If the series was just a light children's romp in a magical boarding school, then, yes, a mean teacher could be the worst thing that the hero had to face. But then the books bring in war and politics and prejudice and yet their hero still thinks that his mean teacher is the worst person ever? Even after he sees how badly the Marauders treated Snape, he still brushes it aside and jumps back into hating Snape. And yet we're supposed to admire his ability to love?

/it makes no damn sense to me how a teenage boy wouldn't be weirded out by the man they hated being obsessed with their dead mom/

Yes, Harry's complete lack of reaction to the news was too unrealistic for me. I know that there's a war going on, but that's never stopped Harry from fuming about Snape before. Now he learns that Snape was obsessed with his mother for no reason and yet he doesn't react at all?

/JKR telling us how perfect Lily Evans was/

Or how pathetic Snape is. He can't be moral in his own right; he has to be forever pining away for a hypocrite who treated him like dirt in order to do something right for once, and then magnanimously forgiven by her son who's hated his guts for years.

[sunnyskywalker]

Why set such stock in a prophecy?

Because wizards don't have a strong literary culture, that's why. If they'd read Oedipus Rex and Macbeth, they would know better.

How exactly (and why?) does Lily’s sacrifice activate the magical force field around Quirrell?

I think Terri is on to a good idea with this one. She pointed out that Dumbledore says he added to Lily's protection somehow, and he misleads us all about which way around it is (in order to mislead Voldemort, presumably). Mother-love doesn't expire upon legal adulthood, but Dumbledore's special additions would. The skin-burning thing is Dumbledore's work. Lily's sacrifice gave Harry unnaturally good luck.