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.

RE: Part 1

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

'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.'

Is there a word for that? It seems like there should be a word for that. There's a word for almost everything else...

We agree on so many of the characters' traits it's funny.

I *would* argue, however, that she *did* go there in terms of the messy traits for many of the Gryffindors, but fandom largely overlooked it. (Or just went: nope.) It's hard to be too judgy of Remus when he just died in the same book, say. (Seriously, he's someone who puts others at risk whenever he happens to feel like it, putting his wants and needs ahead of everyone else's *health and safety* in a truly heinous fashion... There can be no sympathy (from me) for his condition for someone who is willing to recklessly expose others to it, just for shits and giggles.) And by the time we learn some of the extent of Sirius' douchebaggery, he's already dead and gave his life trying to rescue Harry and the kids from their terminal stupidity. That makes it a little pointless and a lot difficult to really get mad at him. (Ditto James, and he wasn't even the asshat that Sirius was.)

The 'facts' are there, it's just that almost until the end, *Harry* focuses more on the: 'yeah, but he's a mean and greasy git' as if that mattered more.

Re: Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Is there a word for that? It seems like there should be a word for that. There's a word for almost everything else...

If there isn't a word for it, there should be! It would help lessen a lot of fandom arguments and squabbles over characters if some people understood the difference between liking a real person and enjoying a fictional character in a story.

I *would* argue, however, that she *did* go there in terms of the messy traits for many of the Gryffindors, but fandom largely overlooked it. (Or just went: nope.)

I think it's both. The HP fandom does ignore or overlook the flaws and mistakes of Gryffindor characters. But I think JKR made it easy for fans to do so. She presents Gryffindor characters as flawed and capable of making mistakes yet pulls back on painting them with too dark of a shade, in my opinion. Any time a Gryffindor character is revealed to be less than virtuous, she doesn't have it be of any major consequence to Harry.

One example is when Harry finds out his father was an arrogant bully. He is appalled by James' behavior, and even manages to sympathize with Snape a little, but does it have an overarching effect on Harry or the story? I don't think it does. Harry questions Sirius and Remus about James, expresses his discomfort and...that's it. If the narrative is willing to disregard the wrongful actions of certain characters, it will have an effect on how the fandom perceives those characters too. The HP books are largely negative towards Slytherins and positive towards Gryffindors.

I agree with you on Remus and Sirius, although I am sympathetic to Remus despite his spinelessness. Nevertheless, it does annoy me how the fandom acts as if being a werewolf is no big deal when in canon, a fully changed werewolf can't differentiate between friend or threat. Remus endangering the kids was more than enough to justify getting him fired. And wanting to abandon Tonks and his child was not a good moment for him either. I am sympathetic to him, but the man does have his faults.

Weirdly enough, although I can find things to like about Sirius despite his douchebaggery and the callous stunt he pulled on Snape, I can't find anything to like about James. Yes, he stood against Voldemort to protect his wife and child and that is a courageous thing to do - yet, it's still not enough for me to be interested in his character. Harry's parents are more like symbols to me rather than people and I think a lot of it has to do with how Harry idealizes them. It makes sense for Harry to do so since he is an orphan starved for love, but I don't find James or Lily to be compelling in personality or characterization separate from Harry.

The 'facts' are there, it's just that almost until the end, *Harry* focuses more on the: 'yeah, but he's a mean and greasy git' as if that mattered more.

It's understandable for Harry to hate Snape before learning the truth, but I found it anticlimactic how Harry learned about Snape's loyalty from a Pensieve and forgave Snape off-screen years later. 7 books of hatred leave a stronger impression than a few pages of understanding and an epilogue including Albus Severus. I think there would've been a stronger lasting impact if Harry and Snape had a face-to-face confrontation either before Snape's death, or if Snape had survived and Harry had to make the hard choice of accepting the man while he was still alive. It's easy to forgive (and idolize) a dead man who can't talk back, but it's difficult to forgive someone who is living and still as flawed as ever. That's why I believe JKR took the easy way out on "solving" the conflict and misunderstanding between Harry and Snape.

Re: Part 1

[sunnyskywalker]

Yes, he stood against Voldemort to protect his wife and child and that is a courageous thing to do

On the other hand, he's always been able to get out of situations before, and while we're not sure exactly how he defied Voldemort three times, one may have involved escaping a previous attack. So maybe deep down, he just didn't believe he was going to die.

I mean, he might have genuinely sacrificed himself, but we don't have quite enough evidence to prove that, and given what else we know about his character, I'd say there's room for doubt.

I remember waaaay back when I thought we were going to see evidence that James had really reformed by the time the series finished, and being able to imagine him being an ok guy. Now, I just can't. I tried, Jo! I really did! If you didn't want me to loathe him utterly, maybe you should have given him some redeeming characteristics in the text!

Re: Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Other than panicking and attempting to protect their son, frankly, I don't know what James and Lily were thinking when Voldemort showed up. Neither of them fought back using their wands, tried to Apparate or run away or hide. I know people freeze up or panic in scary situations, but you'd think James and Lily would have the experience at this point to be prepared for a less than ideal situation.

Regardless, dying for his wife and child is the one thing I can compliment James for, whether he expected to die or not. JKR telling us how he changed and became a better person after hooking up with Lily and leaving Hogwarts isn't enough to endear me to him. And, as a character, what does he have going for him beyond being Harry's dad, a former bully, and a lad to his friends? There's nothing interesting there for me.

Then again, I'll admit to being a cold person who finds Harry's parents awfully dull and aggravating, so I'm far from impartial here....

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!