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

[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.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

'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.'

I think for me he doesn't come across so much as driven as obsessed, say with the way he follows Draco around sixth year. (He happens to be mostly correct on that one. Usually, not so much.) It's also like he's occasionally and very specifically dead certain he's right, and everyone with more experience and demonstrably more talent around him is somehow wrong and missing the point. And if not, they damn well need to prove it to him, because he's entitled to answers, and they need to run things by him first, I guess... (So, basically: delusional.)

I'd give Harry more props for his never having 'been tempted by the Dark Arts' had he showed much interest in *anything* (besides Quidditch, eventually girls, and his latest 'Harry knows best' crack theory (most of which are wrong)). But he just doesn't. He never sits his backside down to learn all he can to master the problem. (Even the DA was Hermione's idea.) When he's given unusual advantages, really stellar opportunities - private tutoring in Occlumency with Snape, for example, he squanders the chance and just... blows it. Or responds with this sense of entitlement that makes me stabby. (How dare Dumbledore not make time for private one on ones with him...)That's probably my biggest problem with his characterisation, he frequently behaves like a spoilt brat (more so than Draco even), and I can't reconcile that with his history.

I can't even give Harry full points for some of his courageous actions when he comes across as more oblivious to the ramifications than brave. (Ron gets the most points from me in those scenes, for mastering his fears like a boss. Even Hermione (who probably has both more fears and more situational awareness) seems to put pragmatism first there, and doesn't cut quite as good a figure there (in my eyes) as Ron does. And I cut Ron slack... almost never, so that's saying something.)

Here again, you keep coming back to what you think JKR meant. The problem is we can't really debate that. We can debate what's *there*, but anything else boils down to reading interviews and trying to decide which statements she meant and which were jokes and which weren't well considered answers, delivered on the fly like that...

Based on what's in the books and movies, Harry for me is sort of the Everyman who succeeds against wretched odds. (I thinking it's telling that he performs no spells in PS, for example, and I love that.) It's one of the reasons I *like* him as a character (I know it doesn't sound like it) even though I dislike so much about him. (Because those last two paragraphs of yours? YES! *\o/* Preach! Absolutely.)

But then I think part of what may be going on there is his inability to deal with his own guilt. In OotP and HBP, he's immature. In HBP, you can just watch him devolving. Guilt spiral? He doesn't grow until DH...

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I think for me he doesn't come across so much as driven as obsessed, say with the way he follows Draco around sixth year.

Maybe "driven" and "obsessed" can be the same thing, ha. :P But you're right that Harry has a tendency to jump to conclusions, stick to his judgment, and insist he has it all figured out. He was right about Draco to an extent, but it's almost a pattern of his in every book to suspect someone wrongfully. I think it's more of JKR's way of writing a plot twist. Having Harry make wrong assumptions is part of surprising the reader when the truth is revealed.

I'd give Harry more props for his never having 'been tempted by the Dark Arts' had he showed much interest in *anything* (besides Quidditch, eventually girls, and his latest 'Harry knows best' crack theory (most of which are wrong)).

Dumbledore praising Harry in HBP for never being tempted by the Dark Arts does fall flat when Harry hardly shows interest in the Dark Arts in the first place, amongst other things. He does cast Unforgivables in DH; however, it's treated as if it's something nonchalant rather than potentially bad for Harry to resort to such spells. He's not tempted so much as he's doing what he has to do and isn't affected by it in the long-run.

When he's given unusual advantages, really stellar opportunities - private tutoring in Occlumency with Snape, for example, he squanders the chance and just... blows it. Or responds with this sense of entitlement that makes me stabby. (How dare Dumbledore not make time for private one on ones with him...)That's probably my biggest problem with his characterisation, he frequently behaves like a spoilt brat (more so than Draco even), and I can't reconcile that with his history.

I agree with you here. I think one of Harry's greatest downfalls as a character - other than his recklessness - is his passiveness. Other than the occasional determination to figure things out and act on his hunches, Harry does seem dependent on the plot and other characters to get him moving. Or he's reluctant to learn new things if it's not easy for him to get by on luck and instinct alone. It could be him acting like a bratty teenager, or it could be JKR focusing more on getting the plot moving without developing her characters in the process beyond the roles she squeezes them into.

As for Harry's courage - I think he can be both oblivious and brave depending on the situation. If I were in his shoes during the graveyard scene in GOF, I'd be terrified out of my mind. Same thing with his showdown with the basilisk in COS. But Harry's bravery isn't unique to his character; he is in the house of Gryffindors after all. Ron, Hermione, and Neville have moments of facing their fears too.

Here again, you keep coming back to what you think JKR meant. The problem is we can't really debate that.

I try to separate my interpretations of the text from what JKR wants us to get from it, but I get the sense that JKR places her own biases and opinions into the text. It piques my curiosity to figure out what was going on in her head when she wrote the books and why certain things rub me the wrong way in how she writes. But you're right that the text should be taken on its own and anything beyond is speculation on what JKR meant.

It's one of the reasons I *like* him as a character (I know it doesn't sound like it) even though I dislike so much about him. (Because those last two paragraphs of yours? YES! *\o/* Preach! Absolutely.)

I have similar feelings about Harry; I like him, but he can annoy me sometimes too. I think he's one of the many characters with squandered potential who could've been handled better. I also like Hermione, Ron, Luna, Neville, Lupin, Sirius, Snape, and Dumbledore despite having criticisms on how they were depicted as well. Snape and Dumbledore, in my opinion, were the two characters JKR came the closest to writing with full-fledged complexity and depth.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think Harry's passivity is one of the squandered opportunities for his character, now that you mention it. He had ten years of the Dursleys proving to him over and over again that it's utterly pointless to ask questions, ask anyone for help, or do anything at all to change his situation. By the time he gets to Hogwarts, he's already suffering a bad case of learned helplessness. (That he manages to do anything is probably to his credit.)

That's a realistic problem for him to struggle with--but JKR never lets him really confront it, or even realize he has it. So he ends the series as he started. Worse, even, because by the end, he numbly marches to his death as ordered. Given the time pressure he was under, he probably couldn't have found an alternate solution--but he didn't question it later either. No, "Hi, Kings Cross Dumbledore, before you planned for my death, what other options did you consider?" Instead, he names his kid after the guy. It's awful. I don't expect characters to have solved all of their problems perfectly by the end, but this leaves us with no catharsis at all. There's no concrete evidence we can use as the basis for hope for the poor kid, even.

Maybe that would be okay if the series were structured as a tragedy or slife-of-life or basically anything but a bildungsroman with a side of Good vs. Evil. JKR either picked the wrong type of story for the character non-arc she wanted or wrote the wrong kind of character arc for the story type she picked. Or just messed up, which is probably most likely.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

*Excellent* point about the learned helplessness and the missed opportunity it represents.

Ironically, some of the things that didn't go as smoothly (love as a theme, religious references) worked better for me in the story than they probably would have otherwise because it seemed less predictable. Things weren't as neat and tidy. I was expecting X and got Y and yet it wasn't such an egregious asspull that I felt the need to chuck the book in the bin.