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]

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.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

I'd tend to agree. I also accept that it would have made her chances of getting the books published a lot less likely had she done so from the outset, and I'll never blame someone for making that call. But by the time the later books came out, I feel like she had enough clout to push that through had it mattered to her. (On the other hand, I can also appreciate not squeezing in some awkward!, so who knows. Maybe it was for the best.)

What's weird for me is that we seem to see so much of and about the characters in much the same light, and then you get to the Snape/Lily thing and I have a very different read on it. Normally, I disagree with people on more points, or don't diverge as much on just the one.

So! If I sat myself down and tried to come up with a rebuttal to your read on that stuff, would that interest you? I wouldn't want to do it if you felt it was being issued as a challenge, and I'll say upfront that I can't debate what JKR meant, just what was there and how it could be taken. (On the upside, if it works for you, maybe it can help restore some of your fondness for Severus?)

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

What's weird for me is that we seem to see so much of and about the characters in much the same light, and then you get to the Snape/Lily thing and I have a very different read on it. Normally, I disagree with people on more points, or don't diverge as much on just the one.

I tend to experience this with most fans of Snape. I like his character a lot and empathize with others who do so, but the one big disagreement I have is hating how Snape/Lily played out in canon. Unfortunately, the only other people I encounter who hate Snape/Lily tend to hate Snape as well, so it puts me in a weird position. I don't hate Snape at all, but I can't stand Snape/Lily with every fiber of my being lol.

If I sat myself down and tried to come up with a rebuttal to your read on that stuff, would that interest you? I wouldn't want to do it if you felt it was being issued as a challenge, and I'll say upfront that I can't debate what JKR meant, just what was there and how it could be taken. (On the upside, if it works for you, maybe it can help restore some of your fondness for Severus?)

If you have the time and wish to write a rebuttal, I would be interested in reading it! I am curious about how other Snape fans take his relationship with Lily and how it affected him as a character. I know my views are strongly negative, but I'm willing to hear any positives about it!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to thank you both for the post and the discussion, and to point you to a short essay I presented at Terminus way back in the summer of 2008. It's called Severus versus Sirius: A Short Meditation on the Nature of Love.

And I do think love is redemptive, and that Snape, who is a very loving character, is therefore redeemed in MY eyes. However, it's quite ambiguous in the text--frustratingly so.

Here's the link if you're interested:
https://mary-j-59.livejournal.com/11642.html

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I agree so much with what you've written in your essay about Sirius and Snape. There are similarities between them as well as differences. They're both emotional, spiteful, petty, and brave men. But while Sirius ended up on the right side of the tracks, Snape ended up on the wrong side with the Death Eaters (before he left). I also like how you point out the detail about Sirius being pack-focused and showing indifference or dislike towards anyone who is outside his chosen group of friends and loved ones. I think it's true to his character.

However, there is one portion of your essay which sticks out to me the most:

Harry considers Severus Snape his enemy, and the man knows this. He knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the boy hates him. Yet he is willing to risk his life for Harry, all the same. Why would he take such risks for someone he dislikes, and who detests him in turn?

Well, DH answered this question: it was all for Lily. Snape never cared about Harry's safety out of duty or some sliver of concern for the boy despite detesting him. It wasn't about Harry or even a promise to Dumbledore - it was about Lily.

Reason # 546783 why I hate Lily being Snape's one motivation with the inferno of a thousand suns.

It would've been loads more powerful to me if Harry's main protector was someone who had no obligation to him and no reason to like him, yet continued to look out for him regardless. But making it all about Lily cheapened Snape's responsibility of watching out for Harry's life.

It also brings everything back to Harry's parents once more and keeps Harry in their shadow. Every conflict Harry has with Snape can be explained in a simplistic manner. Why does Snape hate Harry? Oh, it's because he reminds him of James and his failed past with Lily. Why does Snape watch out for Harry despite the fact that they mutually loathe one another? Oh, it's because Snape looooved Lily. O_o

As I've said, I go back and forth on Snape's redemption. I strongly dislike how it was handled, but it hasn't completely wrecked my interest in Snape as a character. (It has left me bitter to the bone, though.)

All for Lily?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I do understand why you hate Lily being Snape's one motivation! After much thought, I didn't have a problem with it (I've been a Severus/Lily shipper since POA). Here's why:

Rexluscus wrote a wonderful essay about Severus and his spiritual journey. My friend Anne Arthur also pointed out the same model: Dante. And I, for my part, keep coming back to the questions I asked earlier: what sort of human being would actually do what Severus does in the course of the books?

He doesnt' "do it all for Lily". Lily is his STARTING POINT. He is the one who makes the spiritual journey. BTW, there is another literary model for Severus. Saint Paul.

But, as I said, I can understand exactly why you're irritated, because there's something about the text, and the way Rowling draws her characters, that pushes for a simple reading. It's the weird shifts in tone, especially, that irk me and make me think she really does want her characters to be just this flat. How, how, does anyone come up with a "Snape-shaped hole" just a few pages before a character's tragic death?

Also, for better or worse (and in my own writing, also) I tend to see characters as human beings. And no human being ever has one single motive for any act, IMHO. I'm not sure I know my own true motives from one moment to the next! So it's utterly unbelievable to me that Severus, aged 30-something, would be obsessing over Lily every moment of the day and night. Thinking of her? Feeling guilt about her death? Grieving for her? Sure! Yes to all of that. But he would have other worries and other feelings---and, in the end, other motivations. At least, that's how I see it. Lily is his Beatrice, certainly. The Lily of his imagination is a lot better and kinder, I imagine, than the girl we actually see in the books. But his love for Lily didn't inspire him to become a great portioner, to brew Wolfsbane, to give passionate speeches about the subjects he taught-- well. You get the picture.

Again, thanks for reading!

Re: All for Lily?

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I remember reading rexluscus' essay a long, long time ago. I can't find it anymore on LJ since I think their account was deleted, but I recall how they made an interesting point about Snape being too emotionally stunted to admit he has other reasons beyond Lily to continue on in life. As well as seeing Lily as a symbol of light to emulate and worship - a Beatrice figure, as you've said.

It does make more sense for me to see Lily as Snape's starting point. Lily cannot be the one explanation for everything Snape does as an adult. Lily has nothing to do with Snape trying to rescue Lupin in DH,
slyly stopping the Inquisitorial Squad from throttling Neville in OOTP, sending three kids to Hagrid so they won't be tortured, showing concern when a student was taken in COS, telling Dumbledore he tries to save as many people as he can, etc.

Also, for better or worse (and in my own writing, also) I tend to see characters as human beings. And no human being ever has one single motive for any act, IMHO. I'm not sure I know my own true motives from one moment to the next! So it's utterly unbelievable to me that Severus, aged 30-something, would be obsessing over Lily every moment of the day and night. Thinking of her? Feeling guilt about her death? Grieving for her? Sure! Yes to all of that. But he would have other worries and other feelings---and, in the end, other motivations.

I'm with you there. People don't have one motivation for their entire life, no matter how strongly devoted and faithful they are. Humans are more complicated than that. Snape being deeply affected by grief for his former and only friend is understandable. But JKR simplifies it too much by compressing Snape's behavior into to his love for Lily and nothing else.

Re: All for Lily?

[sunnyskywalker]

I think this is where the "interpretive room" issue I mentioned in another comment is relevant. There's lots of textual support for Lily being Snape's starting point, but not his sole motivation. On the other hand, lots of things about the way the text is constructed de-emphasize those things and highlight Lily instead, so you could say the text "encourages" the simpler reading. There's less "room" to interpret Snape as having complex motivations. And when one or the other reading is unsatisfying, or when they contradict each other, that makes it a less satisfying (or unsatisfying) text.