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

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.