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]

Yeah, I think *my* problem there is I've reached a point where I wouldn't believe Albus if he told me the sky was blue or I needed oxygen and water to live. Which doesn't mean he doesn't occasionally tell the truth, and it's key for me to keep that in mind...

It's not just the first fifteen months of having love in Harry's life, although those have been proven to be developmentally crucial, it's also the later knowledge of having been loved. That can make a huge difference in a child's life.

I'd argue the same is true of our world, but I suspect that was the point. 😉

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

The two of you are focusing a lot on what JKR intended for her characters, but I say what she intended doesn’t matter. Any intentions she had that she did not succeed in getting into the text in black and white are not there. If she wanted us to read her story in a certain way, she needed to write it that way. If she wanted Harry to be overflowing with love and Dumbledore to be the epitome of goodness, she needed to write them that way. And she didn’t.

Remember the new motto of DTCL:
Saith Isaac Asimov: No matter what the author intends, what the reader gets out of a story is what is really there.

If JKR doesn’t like what the readers see in her work, she needs to write a Revised Edition, and do a better job of getting her intentions across. Until then, I will continue to see the characters as I read them in the text, not as she has them floating around in her mind after the fact.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

Pretty sure I'm not.

From above: 'I'm not a fan of trying to argue what JKR intended or not [...]. 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.'

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I was replying to the entire conversation, and posted it to you because your note was the most recent in the exchange. I probably should have posted it to torchedsong instead, since she seems to be the one who's most concerned about JKR's intentions. My apologies for not paying closer attention to who said what.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I brought up the topic of what JKR's intentions were and it's mostly myself who is focusing on her views vs the books, not gingerbred or sunnyskywalker.

I've read about the Death of the Author and how the text exists for itself regardless of what the author intended or what they believe.

Reading the books, I agree with you: in canon, I don't think Harry is a Christ figure overflowing with love, nor do I think Dumbledore is all goodness and light. If JKR intended for them to be, I think she failed to properly show it. But, do I think she tried to tell us those things about Harry and Dumbledore? I'd say yes. Was she biased in her preferences for characters like Harry and Dumbledore, and therefore, wanted them to be seen as nicer than they were? I think so too.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think the tension between what she says she intended and what she actually wrote is interesting. Like, she can tell me all she wants that James was a good guy, and that doesn't make a bit of difference to me as far as how I read the text itself. (Namely, no, he wasn't.) But I do find it interesting that she apparently thinks she wrote him that way. And that she then accuses fans of having "bad boy syndrome" for being interested in Snape. That she could write an absolutely classic bad boy in James and then think she didn't is fascinating.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. James and Sirius strike me as more classic cases of the bad boy archetype rather than Snape. The two young Gryffindors are depicted as handsome, charismatic, popular, rebellious, and carefree rule-breakers. James is flirtatious and arrogant with Lily as he's bullying Snape; almost as if he's "marking his territory," so to speak. Snape being a morally conflicted person doesn't make him a "bad boy" - at least not in the standard definition of how a bad boy character appeals to women.

The disconnect between JKR's text and what she believes is fascinating (and perplexing) to me too. How she can write something like "Snape's Worst Memory" and not fathom why some fans may see James in a negative light is beyond my comprehension.

[sunnyskywalker]

There's also the issue of what a Ferretbrain essay called "interpretive room," as I recall. It was about how the way a text is constructed (page time, plot, genre conventions, word choice, tone, etc.) makes certain interpretations more likely that others--in certain ways, at least.

For instance, the original Star Wars trilogy tilts the interpretive scales heavily in favor of the reading that Luke Is A Good Guy. He's a loyal friend, he stops bad guys from blowing up planets, he has more compassion than his mentors and makes an evil man remember how to be good again, etc. There are lots of other nudges (all-American looks, grew up on a farm, various things audiences associate with Good Guys). Similarly, the movies heavily tilt the scales in favor of The Empire Is Bad. They wear either identical masks and suits or Nazi uniforms, the top guys dress all in black, Vader chokes people, and oh, they blow up planets.

Now, you can look at the movies and wonder how much choice all those stormtroopers had in ending up as stormtroopers, and whether killing them by the bushel ought to at least raise questions about anyone who kills them without a second thought at some point. You could probably even spin the trilogy as the story of how a bunch of violent anarchists destroyed law and order in the galaxy or something. But so many aspects of the movies push you in the opposite direction that I think it's fair to say it isn't what the movies "intend." (Which is a separate question from what George Lucas intended. He could announce tomorrow that he always intended for Luke to be the villain, and we could still say that the movies "intend" something different by their very construction.)

E.g., the scenes where Luke redeems Vader are intercut with scenes of his friends unproblematically blasting stormtroopers. You see a sad scene of stormtroopers killing cute teddy bears (and one teddy bear crying about it), and then scenes shot as comedy where the teddy bears bash the stormtroopers with rocks. Everything from tone to story structure pushes the reading that stormtrooper deaths don't count the way other deaths do.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

It's interesting comparing HP to Star Wars, because while the latter has its faults as well, SW (or at least the OT) runs as a smoother story for me. There are less than perfect additions to the story, such as the the last minute reveal of Leia being Luke's sister. And yet, I don't have as much confusion or focus on what the OT "intended" in contrast to the HP series. Is it because, as you've explained below, the books suffer a case from "genre soup" while SW remains a clear epic space opera with fantasy elements? The tone and story structure is easier to follow and remains consistent in the OT. As you've said, George Lucas could come out and claim he intended for Luke to be evil, but the movies are clear enough in their own intentions that I don't feel the need to refer to what Lucas is thinking, unlike JKR and her books.

[sunnyskywalker]

Agreed. Whatever other faults Star Wars has, at least it doesn't feel like it's jerking you around, and it feels coherent with respect to itself. Even the surprise revelations make sense, and you can go back and see hints (and even when there are signs of new ideas out of nowhere, like "surprise! twins!" it still isn't so egregious that it harms the story appreciably).

That's one of the problems the Prequel Trilogy caused, I think. By introducing the backstory of the stormtroopers as brainwashed slaves grown in vats, suddenly blasting them left and right with no compunction in the OT looks different, and it's never resolved. That wasn't a problem when the stormtrooper issue was consistently glossed over. Being inconsistently glossed over just calls attention to the fact that something is being glossed over. I think that's what happened with the Slytherins. If she hadn't tried to add complexity to them in the first place, it would still be something we could look at and question and be irritated by, but the questionable morality wouldn't stand out as a glaring story problem in the same way.

[sunnyskywalker]

So, bringing it back to HP... I think Elkins identified some of what she called the "fault lines" in the text where the text seems to support contradictory readings. Blood doesn't matter, and the characters who say it does are evil and join the Wizard Nazis. But Harry is literally protected by his mother's love carried in his blood, Voldemort has a shot at redemption because he gets Magic Love Blood in his new body, and he was evil at least partly because he came from bad blood. Which does the text favor as the dominant reading? How does it resolve the contradiction? It doesn't. And that makes it feel unresolved.

I think Elkins also pointed out the "genre soup" aspect of the books as one of the things causing the contradictions. If you're writing a classic bildungsroman, the way the story is structured, the things emphasizes strongly, relate to how the character grows and develops. As long as there's a satisfying character arc with some kind of resolution, it feels "right" as a story. If you're writing a classic whodunnit, the clues and plot take precedence, and as long as you solve the mystery, it still feels "complete" even if the characters don't develop. But if it starts as a whodunnint and ends with Hercule Poirot declaring that the solution to the mystery is irrelevant because he's learned so much on the journey, it feels wrong.

Combining genres can work, as long as the elements fit together right. I think a lot of the time in HP, they aren't balanced right, so it's hard to tell how the text "intends" you to read it, i.e., which interpretation(s) it supports more strongly than others. Each of the first three books end with Harry defeating evil with the help of friendship or finding some mercy for an enemy etc. So it sets readers up to expect struggling with moral questions and growing as a person to be part of the story arc. It is structured as (among other things) a bildungsroman. So when the series ends without addressing most of those issues in favor of having Harry come to terms with the unfairness of death, it feels like the books switched emphasis somewhere. It started as one type of story, and ended as a different type. It leaves you hanging as to what it "means" when it strongly emphasizes how horrible torture and torturers are, and how someone on the "good" side like Crouch who condones those things is corrupt, but glosses over Harry using a torture curse.

Does the story structure, characterization, page count/emphasis, etc. encourage readers to treat Slytherins like stormtroopers, a non-issue, even though they're much more humanized and given internal conflicts, because it never resolves the inter-house rivalry issue? Or does it support a more complex reading involving Harry learning that people are complex and then just fail to resolve it? I'd say both, really, at different points. The text is at war with itself.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

"Genre soup" is a good way of putting it. The tone shift of books 1-4 and books 5-7 makes me wonder if starting at book 5, JKR wanted to be taken more seriously as a writer. She wanted to keep her coming-of-age story about a young boy in a magical boarding school world, but she also wanted to appeal to adults by introducing heavier themes of racism, discrimination, politics, war, moral ambiguity, etc. She veered the story in a darker and gritter direction, but didn't develop her characters to fit the mature themes she was brandishing. Nor did she stick to a consistent tone - wanting both the "child-like" elements of book 1-3 and the "darker" elements of books 5-7 (with book 4 being a sort of "limbo" space between the genre and tone shifts in the series).

Does the story structure, characterization, page count/emphasis, etc. encourage readers to treat Slytherins like stormtroopers, a non-issue, even though they're much more humanized and given internal conflicts, because it never resolves the inter-house rivalry issue? Or does it support a more complex reading involving Harry learning that people are complex and then just fail to resolve it? I'd say both, really, at different points. The text is at war with itself.

I'd say it's both as well. I think JKR wanted to play around with complexity but revert back to simplicity to suit her biases. She can tease the potential of Slytherins being more than they seem with hidden depths, but backs out in the last minute by condemning all of them as evil or pitiful when needed. "Slytherins are 98% bad with one or two exceptions being maybe morally dubious at best."

Same thing with her Gryffindor characters. She teases the possibility of Gryffindors like James being greatly flawed on the same level as the cruel Slytherins, but backs out in the last minute by dropping any consequences for Gryffindors acting unsavory when needed. "James was a swell guy after all! Only Slytherins are allowed to be bad boys and bullies"

In my opinion, what JKR ended up with is a coming-of-age story where the hero doesn't seem to learn any life lessons beyond being loyal to Dumbledore because Dumbledore is always right. Harry remains unquestioning, passive, and dependent on his mentor figure to the end. He never escapes the shadow of his parents either. If anything, Harry seemed more willing to learn and own up to being wrong when he was a child rather than the young adult he was in DH.

[sunnyskywalker]

Yeah, I think the series started as a coming-of-age story, but didn't end as one. It also had strong mystery and good vs. evil fantasy elements which got de-emphasized and never really resolved. Instead we got... well, I'm not really sure what. The story of a kid who has a rough life, comes to terms with death, and manages to grab some happiness before they all inevitably die? Kind of like how I see Les Miserables (they don't fix the larger social problems, but you never really expected them to--it was about whether specific individuals could be redeemed or find happiness despite living under a cruel, unfair system). Which is nice, but not the story we started reading.

And you're right that the series shifted tone and grew darker and more complex mid-way, but not successfully. It happened with a jerk instead of smoothly, and then the final book was a weird exercise in trying to scrub the complexity out again. Even as it added some in for Dumbledore. I'm picturing JKR playing whack-a-mole with her subconscious.

I like the genre soup aspect in a lot of ways, because it does add some unpredictability and freshness... but it's something that has to be carefully balanced. I think it came unbalanced somewhere around GoF, definitely by OotP.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I wish I could like this comment!

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

If you look at the saga as a whole, there is one character who undergoes a complete arc worthy of a bildungsroman. He has an unhappy childhood followed by a painful adolescence, makes errors of judgment leading to personal tragedy, recognizes his own moral failures and learns from his mistakes, works to atone for them, grows into an intelligent and powerful adult who protects others without hope of recognition, and eventually sacrifices his life in order to save his society from evil. Obviously this is not Harry.

Harry is the hero of the story, but the protagonist is Severus Snape. The protagonist is the one who changes, and Snape is the character who undergoes true transformation. That pretty but superficial teenager Lily Evans is merely his catalyst; Severus has to do the hard labor of transformation himself, with no supportive friends or kindly mentor.

Mary, you’ve been known to call Severus a saint. I wouldn’t have thought to use that term since I’m an atheist, but I think you’re absolutely right. Severus comes by his moral principles the hard way: by falling into darkness and fighting his way back out the other side. That’s how you become a saint. It doesn’t make you nice, but does give you one hell of a bildungsroman.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Your well-written comment exemplifies why I found Snape in books 1-6 to be one of the more complex characters the series had to offer.

I liked Harry, but I knew how his story would end. I knew he would prevail, defeat Voldemort, and obtain the happy life of normalcy he wanted and deserved. Harry, as a character, is easy to love. His journey was full of hardships, but he had love in his life before his happy ending. He had friendship, camaraderie, warmth, guidance, and protection in the midst of all the difficulty and misfortune.

Snape had nothing and no one for the majority of his life. He had Lily's friendship until he lost it. He had Dumbledore, but that relationship wasn't built on fondness alone. A mixture of bad choices and poor circumstances made Snape's life one big tragedy, and I hoped JKR wouldn't make Snape's story as predictable as Harry's by having him end on a tragic note. I wanted Snape's journey as a character to be one of change, survival, freedom from one's masters, and unconventional heroism. I wanted an ending where the dark, difficult, and contentious character doesn't get offed because he's too challenging to keep alive. I didn't want a saccharine happy ending for Snape, nor did I expect it, but I did want an ending which made it clear he fought his way out of the darkness of his past choices and would survive his miserable mess of a life.

Well, with the release of DH, JKR and I clearly did not want the same things.... Such is life. That's what fanfiction is for!