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

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Warning: disorganised ramble ahead.

Tom, as you say, was doomed from the minute he was cast as a villain. This, I think, is because JKR does not see *any* of her characters (except perhaps Dumbledore) as complex, flawed individuals.

Tom is evidently meant to show signs of ASPD as a child and teenager (hurting people and animals, being charming). And this, I think, JKR does do well — people with ASPD and/or narcissism have very little capacity for love. But it would have been more apparent had Tom gone on to lead a normal (whether wizarding or Muggle) life. Instead, he became Voldemort.

There is a fundamental disconnect between Tom Riddle, who so captivated Slughorn, and Lord Voldemort, the cartoonish villain of Harry’s acquaintance. LV acts erratically, and illogically.

1. Instead of rounding up Muggles and killing them, or becoming a serial killer in the usual sense of the word, he decides to seek immortality.
2. He not only goes after the Potters in a theatrical manner, he tells Lily three times to step aside. Really, he should have just Crucio’d and then AK’d her.
3. Why set such stock in a prophecy? They don’t have to come true. I’ve realised I hate prophecies because, 90% of the time, they’re a plot device.
4. Why not kill Neville?
5. Why not have your minions kill or capture Harry Potter, if you are so hellbent on eliminating him? For that matter, why not magically bomb Godric’s Hollow to make sure you’ve really killed your would-be vanquisher?
6. Why does LV reincarnate as this weird red-eyed monster? I get that losing his soul has pushed him further from humanity, but maybe JKR thought that having him fade away into a spirit again, in conjunction with the Horcruxes’ destruction, might be too reminiscent of Sauron and the One Ring (having said that, LoTR itself draws heavily from Norse myth, among other things).
7. Two negatives don’t equal a positive. It is possible to be capable of authentic/real love but use it to the wrong ends. Credit to JKR, she would have done this well had Grindelwald and Albus actually been portrayed as lovers in canon, rather than allies. I think Snape is also supposed to be an example of this, except that his motivation is totally unrealistic.
8. What does being unable to feel love (and the so-called power of love) have to do with any of this? Empathy, yes, I can understand - but love? People didn’t defeat Hitler with ~love vibes~, but with armies. How exactly (and why?) does Lily’s sacrifice activate the magical force field around Quirrell? Are Harry and/or Lily that powerful? Is it a mother-son thing? A freak accident? Genetic? Is there some gene in Harry that triggers that reaction?

Now we come to Harry. I could understand his being a hero if Harry had actually *done* something - if he’d been a child prodigy who used his powers to invent a novel way to kill Voldemort, or, as in the Sacrifices arc, his love had been directed towards a particular person or thing outside of himself.

But he is not even particularly loving towards *himself*, never mind other people. He doesn’t exhibit many virtues save that of bravery; he doesn’t learn to temper his recklessness, he is lazy when it comes to schoolwork and he is frequently downright belligerent with his supposed best friends. He does not show restraint in eating (frequently stuffing himself stupid along with Ron), and rather than recruit him as an ally, he immediately judges Malfoy as being worse than Dudley (!) on the basis of a couple of criticisms about Ron. In fact, he judges all his Slytherin peers as irredeemable and never alters his view.

Now, I have no issue with the above traits in a protagonist as long as they are clearly treated as being negative. But the narration never questions his actions or attitudes, and readers are meant to believe they’re justified because Harry is Inherently Good — *not* because, say, he’s been abused and deprived of food and love as a child, which would make sense, but because he is The Hero and his worldview, by definition, cannot be wrong except when required by the plot.

He also, as others have pointed out, hates Snape throughout the series until the Lily!infatuation redeems him in his eyes.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

On Friendship:

Ron and Hermione, meanwhile, do try to show Harry acceptance at some points in the series, but as they are (in effect) his sidekicks, and secondary characters, this is rarely a relationship of equals. They do the same things he does; all three involve themselves in the same quests which have the same objectives (defeat Voldemort).

The closest we get is Book One, where all three demonstrate selfless bravery in order to rescue the others (Harry by taking down the troll, Hermione by risking trouble saving Harry from ‘Snape’ during the match, and Ron by sacrificing himself during the chess game). Harry seems happier in that book, and more generous; he buys sweets for Ron, Neville and Hermione, and is more than glad to share them around.

In PS their friendship is purer; by CoS it is becoming a sort of paint-by-numbers adventure series. Ron becomes The Sidekick, and Hermione The Nerd/the infodump.

Hermione does try to inculcate good study habits into him, but this is brushed off as nagging; and we never see a counter from Harry. He never points out - gently - that perhaps she is a bit too exacting; nor do he or Ron ever attempt to correct their study habits. Conversely, we don’t see any change in Hermione’s behaviour either. She fails to grow out of her know it all manner and try to make other friends outside the Golden Trio. If anything, the three can’t be said to be friends at the end of the series.

The R/Hr/H (friendship) moment that stands out most in the later books is in OotP, where Ron and Hermione make Murtlap Essence for Harry in book 5 (he repays them by ranting about Sirius Black, without a hint of gratitude). Much of the rest of the later books involves them bickering or Harry capslocking - or Hermione committing egregious crimes.

In fairness, Harry does start up the DA, which is a brave thing to do. But starting up a group to protest against unfair rules is motivated as much by indignation as by any concern for others. In fact, perhaps because it’s Rowling, the DA chapters in OotP smack much more of “But it’s not fair!” than the sort of discipline, vision or self-sacrifice that motivates a good leader. If we think of the Harry in the Sacrifices Arc, we can see that that Harry truly cares about people. Canon!Harry’s “saving people thing” is just that - it is not real sacrifice because it doesn’t spring from real love. Yes, it may come from a desire to get people out of danger, but the emotionally stunted Harry we see throughout the series is incapable of selfless love for all humanity and all sentient creatures. He is not incapable of any finer feelings whatsoever, but nor is he the leader the WW is looking for. He has little training and even less prudence. Not only does he never seek out extra training, he slacks off in his normal classes too. As he himself points out, half his encounters with LV are fuelled by pure luck, and this manifests itself again when Rowling needs to resort to a lucky potion because she’s realised her hero can’t hold his own against an experienced teacher.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Harry doesn’t make any attempt to get along with Snape during Occlumency and actually intrudes upon his privacy. To be fair, as written, Snape went about it in a horribly invasive way. Had Rowling not written him as an awful teacher, this might have actually been an enjoyable reading experience.

Harry’s pity towards Luna at her father’s house (DH) is not love, either, strictly speaking. It is a sort of superiority. I think it’s meant to be read as empathy, but it comes off as shallow when he has done very little to get to know her over the years. She is always the Manic Pixie Girl, the “comic” relief, relegated to the sidelines.

What of Sirius? Harry obviously enjoys Sirius’ company a great deal, and he clearly cares about him. But Sirius is always avuncular, and he is one of the closest people Harry has had to a parent. Never mind that he isn’t a fit guardian, he’s better than the Dursleys and he seems to have Harry’s best interests at heart. But what, ultimately, does his death teach Harry?

Harry’s “saving people thing” is motivated by recklessness and impulsivity. It may also be a result of trauma - how, I have no idea.

As for Dumbledore, Harry idolises him. Why, I don’t know. Probably because he is genial and “twinkling”. But Dumbledore has done very little for him. In fact, his decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys:

a) emotionally stunts Harry, or at least doesn’t do anything to teach him about healthy relationships
b) damages Harry’s chances to learn magic outside of school
c) puts paid to his chances of being a leader.

So what is the real redemptive power of love in the series? Not much. There are very few real, positive instances of love-as-saving -grace in the series.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Harry doesn’t make any attempt to get along with Snape during Occlumency and actually intrudes upon his privacy. To be fair, as written, Snape went about it in a horribly invasive way. Had Rowling not written him as an awful teacher, this might have actually been an enjoyable reading experience.

This makes me wonder, what was the ultimate point of the Occlumency lessons in the long-run? To heighten Voldemort as a threat if Harry leaves his mind wide open? Harry ends up defeating Voldemort without the help of Occlumency, so it didn't matter all that much for him to learn it.

Or were the lessons meant to tell us how awful of a teacher Snape is? We knew that already. To tell us how Snape and Harry can't get along? We knew that already too. And Harry looking in the Pensieve didn't make much of a difference either. He is disturbed by his father's actions for about 5 minutes and then moves on with his life. It doesn't change Harry's perception of Snape, the Marauders, his parents, and so forth. Everything stays the same.

[Luna] is always the Manic Pixie Girl, the “comic” relief, relegated to the sidelines.

I like Luna, but you're right. Luna is the adorable yet peculiar girl who isn't too significant to the overall plot. At least she gave some extra page time for Ravenclaws and had three or so nice moments with Harry.

But what, ultimately, does [Sirius'] death teach Harry?

I'd say: absolutely nothing. Harry's lack of reflection after the Ministry incident in OOTP was a major disappointment.

As for Dumbledore, Harry idolises him. Why, I don’t know. Probably because he is genial and “twinkling”.

It makes sense to me why a Harry as a child would look up to Dumbledore and see him as impeccable. He is presented as a grandfatherly figure who offers advice, refuge, and prestige within the Wizarding world. But Harry as a young adult should've have grown beyond Dumbledore's influence. In a coming-of-age story, the protagonist is supposed to mature beyond the guidance of their mentor figure and stop seeing them as foolproof. Harry never gets there. He continues to be Dumbledore's follower instead of his own man. It's why I was not impressed with JKR attempting to give Dumbledore shades of grey; Harry forgives him in seconds and it doesn't offer any long-lasting effects. Dumbledore's shadier qualities are swept under the rug and deemed irrelevant in Harry's eyes.

So what is the real redemptive power of love in the series? Not much. There are very few real, positive instances of love-as-saving -grace in the series.

I think JKR was going for love as redemptive, but it's a debate whether she succeeded or failed to show it properly in the text itself.

Thank you for your comments! You've raised thought-provoking questions and answers for this topic.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

You know, that’s a great point about the Occlumency lessons. I think I wondered this sort of obliquely myself, while reading OotP for the first time, but I didn’t have the skills at that point to articulate why it didn’t sit right with me. The entire book felt very disjointed, but it wasn’t until later that I started to read critically and pick up on some of the issues.

Unfortunately I think SWM was part of the point of showing us those sequences. It was an attempt to show us a more sympathetic Snape.

I don’t blame Harry for being pissed off that Snape dived into his head and yanked out his memories. There are gentler ways of approaching something so private, and Snape had no business being as antagonistic as he was, or as oblique. Really, “clear your mind” is not an instruction that I would expect a child like Harry to understand how to do. At least Snape could have shown him some techniques.

Harry, too, holds the Idiot Ball, and doesn’t ask questions or try different strategies - he just sulks. Rather than being civil to each other, they continue to antagonise one another for the dramaz. Harry’s fuse is shorter than a matchstick (Harrycrux flaring to life, perhaps?), and Snape does not even attempt to mollify him. So, bond? What bond? Presumably Snape’s memories are meant to show Harry that he and Snape are Not So Different, but it’s too little too late. It doesn’t feel organic.

As you said, nothing comes out of this little escapade. Harry doesn’t learn anything or change his behaviour towards anyone.

Totally agree about Harry never achieving real independence! We are evidently meant to admire him for being “Dumbledore’s man through and through.”

Yeah, I know she was going for love as a redemptive power, but you really have to read between the lines for that :)

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The very, very cynical side of me speculates that the point of the Occlumency lessons was to give the reader more reasons to distrust and dislike Snape. Because, ya know, there weren't enough reasons already. XD

And if I allow myself to embrace my cynicism further, I think the point of "Snape's Worst Memory" wasn't to show a sympathetic side to Snape, but to instill future bread crumbs to the "shocking" revelation of Snape and Lily being close friends.

When I first read SWM, I also assumed it was meant to present Snape in a more down-to-earth and sympathetic light. Having Snape be a victim of bullying provided a challenge: acknowledging the teacher who is cruel to his students was once a student who had cruelty inflicted on him - and by courageous Gryffindors at that. You had to acknowledge bullying is wrong, no matter whom it happened to - even when the victim is the present-day mean teacher whom you hate and the perpetrators are the men you like and admire.

Well, after DH came out, I realized I was wrong. The purpose of SWM wasn't to humanize Snape or present a commentary on bullying and the consequences of human failings. No, it was about Snape feeling guilty over calling Lily a “mudblood” because it caused him to lose her friendship. Another hint to JKR’s amazing plot twist of “Snape loved Lily.” -_-

When it comes to the Occlumency lessons, I put the blame on everyone. I blame Snape for not teaching Harry properly. I blame Harry for not putting more effort into learning anything about Occlumency. I blame Dumbledore for keeping information from both Snape and Harry and assuming it would have no consequences to how they interact with one another.

Maybe this is another case of JKR squeezing her characters into pre-defined roles and having them act incompetent and static for the sake of the plot. Characters aren't allowed to change and grow because that wouldn't take the story in the direction JKR wanted. So Snape remains a bad teacher, Harry brushes the Pensieve memories aside, and Dumbledore twinkles and offers platitudes from a distance. Nothing changes.

Totally agree about Harry never achieving real independence! We are evidently meant to admire him for being “Dumbledore’s man through and through.”

JKR couldn't decide between two wildly different messages concerning Dumbledore. On one hand, Dumbledore is the ultimate mentor figure whom everyone should have faith in because he's the epitome of good. On the other hand, Dumbledore is fallible and greatly flawed just like everybody else. It gives me whiplash. Harry being "Dumbledore's man through and through" further solidified how passive and unquestioning Harry is, which is a shame.

Yeah, I know she was going for love as a redemptive power, but you really have to read between the lines for that :)

I think JKR should've stuck with love being a simple and nice message in a children's book instead of trying to make it into something redemptive. Redemption for "sinners" like Snape and the Malfoys requires compassion for them as people and a nuanced and transformative view of their characters - none of which, in my opinion, JKR had for her Slytherins.

[sunnyskywalker]

I also blame the entire Hogwarts teaching culture for being terrible. Where else did Snape learn his techniques but by trying to emulate his own teachers, McGonagall in particular? It isn't like they have teacher training, or any concept of good pedagogical practices.

But on re-reads, it looks like Snape treats at least one Occlumency lesson like a covert child protective services investigation. No sneering at Harry being scared and hiding in a tree; he asks whose dog it was to learn more about the circumstances (i.e., was it a random neighborhood thing, or was it Harry's guardians' fault?). And by an amazing coincidence, it's at the end of that school year that Dumbledore first admits how bad the Dursleys were, and the Order threatens the Dursleys to keep them from mistreating Harry. And a few weeks later, Dumbledore impresses Harry by telling off the Dursleys for their bad parenting. Snape had to have taken his findings to the Order, and other people finding out shamed Dumbledore into belatedly sort of doing something.

Not that Harry ever figures this out.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The friendship among the trio is, admittedly for me, one of the positive parts of the books because I do find their dynamic endearing sometimes. Nonetheless, there are fair criticisms to make, such as Hermione being used as a convenient info-dump, and Ron being written as too ordinary in comparison to Harry and Hermione. I also think their friendship was purer and more believable in PS/SS. JKR did a good job, in my opinion, of creating a warm and innocent atmosphere within the trio while showing their strengths separate from one another in the first book.

But as the books went on, it does seem like Ron and Hermione exist to serve Harry with little reciprocation. Ron provides Harry with the family Harry always dreamed of, and Hermione provides Harry with necessary help and knowledge on their adventures. I do think the three of them care deeply for one another from beginning to end, but they all suffer from a lack of development as individuals. If anything, I think Ron potentially changes the most out of the three.

Canon!Harry’s “saving people thing” is just that - it is not real sacrifice because it doesn’t spring from real love. Yes, it may come from a desire to get people out of danger, but the emotionally stunted Harry we see throughout the series is incapable of selfless love for all humanity and all sentient creatures.

Yes, I wouldn't describe Harry as defined by his all-embracing love for humanity. He cares for his friends, chosen family figures, and the people he likes. He is perfectly normal in that sense. But I never saw him as a Christ figure who extends his compassion towards his fellow man out of selflessness - no matter their background. I think JKR wished for her readers to see him that way and wrote his sacrifice in DH to hammer it home. But even then, it's another example of Harry blindly following Dumbledore's orders to get rid of the horcrux within him. It's not a sacrifice based on love for humanity alone. But I'm probably being too hard on Harry here because I thought his sacrifice and return to life was foreseeable. And the specters of his parents urging him to his death was creepy rather than moving for me....

Overall, I agree Harry primarily runs on luck, impulse, plot armor, and the dependence/convenience on other people in his life to guide him. Even the DA wasn't entirely made of Harry's own choice - Hermione was the one who initiated it, if I remember correctly. And it was disbanded in HBP because...it wouldn't benefit the plot anymore, I guess.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

To be fair, although I’m no longer rabidly into the books (I’ve more or less outgrown them, even the earlier ones), there are some lovely moments in PS in particular. I think Snape’s introductory speech is one of the best pieces of writing in the whole series, and the puzzle sequence at the end is clever. It’s much more whimsical than the rest of the series.

Part of the reason I don’t buy their friendship is that I probably need to reread the books. :P Harry and Ron’s first Christmas morning at Hogwarts, for instance, is also lovely. But there are less of these quiet moments throughout the books, and I’m willing to bet that we see Harry comforting and standing by Ron less than the opposite (Ron standing by him).

But even then, it's another example of Harry blindly following Dumbledore's orders to get rid of the horcrux within him. It's not a sacrifice based on love for humanity alone. [...] And the specters of his parents urging him to his death was creepy rather than moving for me....

I entirely agree. I didn’t predict Harry’s death and resurrection, though. Speaking of, Christ went through an enormous amount of pain on the cross. His agony was palpable and he reacted to it in an entirely appropriate way. What does Harry go through? Yes, he goes through abuse, but his actual death is just a standard battle. Resurrecting him certainly won’t suddenly make him the Christ figure of the series.

Even the DA wasn't entirely made of Harry's own choice - Hermione was the one who initiated it, if I remember correctly. And it was disbanded in HBP because...it wouldn't benefit the plot anymore, I guess.

That’s an excellent point about the DA. It could’ve been used to unite the school and fight LV, especially given all the Sorting Hat’s warnings about uniting or “crumbling from within”, but instead it is just more clumsy anti-Slytherin fodder. Harry does little if anything to entice Slytherin members into the DA.

The Marietta thing could also have been handled much better - in fact, it needn’t have happened at all.

As others have pointed out, Hermione never actually stops and reflects on her behaviour towards Marietta. Having your protagonist commit an immoral act and never be changed by it is... sort of pointless and makes the character come off as sociopathic. I know people disapprove of her Memory Charms in DH, but at least she was affected by those.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

To be fair, although I’m no longer rabidly into the books (I’ve more or less outgrown them, even the earlier ones), there are some lovely moments in PS in particular. I think Snape’s introductory speech is one of the best pieces of writing in the whole series, and the puzzle sequence at the end is clever. It’s much more whimsical than the rest of the series.

I think JKR had a better handle on her writing in the earlier books from PS/SS to POA. It wasn't extraordinary literature, but it was a fun and moving story with colorful characters and a cozy yet eccentric magical world. The dialogue was decent and funny too. The moment in COS when Ron and Harry are bantering back-and-forth about Snape's absence before he appears to scold them for their arrival via flying car was genuinely amusing. Everything was more, as you've said, whimsical. JKR does a good job creating that sort of atmosphere; it's when she attempts to make things "deeper" and "darker" in the later books that her writing starts to fall apart for me.

But there are less of these quiet moments throughout the books, and I’m willing to bet that we see Harry comforting and standing by Ron less than the opposite (Ron standing by him).

Ron does abandon Harry in GOF and DH, but he returns and continues to support Harry despite his own insecurities and jealousy issues. Ron and Hermione's loyalty to Harry can almost be unbelievable at times. Maybe I excuse it too much. :p

And I agree about Marietta. When I was younger, it completely flew over my head how ruthless Hermione could be. JKR did explain how she loathes traitors and, well... that's probably why Hermione never reflects on scarring a student. JKR approves of Hermione's actions, so there's no need to call Hermione out on it in the text.

The DA was another missed opportunity for Harry to grow and come into his own as a leader, as well as missing the chance of uniting students across all houses. The call for house cooperation never amounted to anything either. Gryffindors are the main stars. Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs are afterthoughts. Slytherins are morally dubious at best and evil at worst.

It would've been interesting if Harry had at least one Slytherin friend or mentor figure he respected, but that would've required giving Slytherin house redeeming qualities of its own and I don't think JKR ever wanted that.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

You make a lot of great points here, especially concerning Voldemort and Harry.

There is a fundamental disconnect between Tom Riddle, who so captivated Slughorn, and Lord Voldemort, the cartoonish villain of Harry’s acquaintance. LV acts erratically, and illogically.

Yes, I almost think of Riddle and Voldemort as two separate entities, although they're the same person. Riddle the person was more interesting to me than his resurrection as Voldemort.

Many of the questions you ask are similar to the ones I've wondered about as well. I think you answered them in a way by mentioning this:

Tom, as you say, was doomed from the minute he was cast as a villain. This, I think, is because JKR does not see *any* of her characters (except perhaps Dumbledore) as complex, flawed individuals.

I think JKR wanted to play around with the potential for complexity in her characters, but failed to go all the way with the majority of them. She tells rather than shows, and falls back on simple black and white categorizing to make things convenient. I think she came close with Dumbledore and Snape as the two most complex characters in the series, but failed to give them complete depth too. Dumbledore's dubious morals ended up meaning nothing - he gets regulated back to the kindly mentor figure regardless of his ruthlessness and manipulation. And Snape? His entire morally conflicted existence is condensed into his love for Lily.

As for Voldemort, I don't think JKR wished for him too be too complicated of a villain. He seems pretty standard to me: narcissistic, power-hungry, incapable of love, obsessed with living forever, more monstrous than human, etc. Add in prejudice intermixed with fantasy world racism and Voldemort is all around standard. Let's throw in some creepy snake-like imagery too because, as everyone knows, snakes are evil.

Voldemort, just as many other of JKR's characters, is written more like a plot device. The characters exist to fulfill a role the plot needs in the moment. Voldemort will be a formidable and threatening monster in one moment, then an incompetent and illogical cardboard villain in another.

As for Harry:

But the narration never questions his actions or attitudes, and readers are meant to believe they’re justified because Harry is Inherently Good — *not* because, say, he’s been abused and deprived of food and love as a child, which would make sense, but because he is The Hero and his worldview, by definition, cannot be wrong except when required by the plot.

I'm with you here. I wouldn't have a problem with Harry's flaws - his rash judgment, impulsiveness, passivity, etc. - if he grew as a character and learned from his mistakes. Instead, he remains relatively the same. As I've discussed with members above, I don't think Harry in canon is shown as an all loving compassionate figure, but I think JKR wanted us to see him that way and persisted in telling us how his ability to love is ultra-special in comparison to Voldemort's inability to love. It's a typical Innately Good Hero vs. Innately Evil Villain showdown.

He also, as others have pointed out, hates Snape throughout the series until the Lily!infatuation redeems him in his eyes.

This is perhaps wishful thinking on my part, but I'd like to think Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and his bravery were more influential in earning Harry's forgiveness rather than his infatuation for Lily. Otherwise, it makes no damn sense to me how a teenage boy wouldn't be weirded out by the man they hated being obsessed with their dead mom. If Harry were a normal teenage boy, he'd be furious or grossed out knowing another man was so stuck on his mom and doing everything only for her. Then again, Harry admires his parents and never grows past his child-like idolization of them, so maybe it really is as simple as "Snape loved my mom? Oh, I guess he's all right now."

Or maybe it's another example of JKR telling us how perfect Lily Evans was. Anyone obsessed with her deserves some recognition since Lily is so flawless. -_-

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/telling us how his ability to love is ultra-special in comparison to Voldemort's inability to love/

I think that the issue with what the books were telling and showing about Harry's love can be summed up in one word: Snape.

I think that you're right about Voldemort being written more like a plot device, especially when you notice the difference between how he's treated by Harry versus how Snape is treated. Voldemort killed Harry's parents, which resulted in Harry being sent to live with the Dursleys, who treated him badly. Voldemort's campaign of terror involves the persecution and murder of Muggle-borns, which resulted in one of Harry's best friends being attacked in his second year. Voldemort inspired his followers to commit horrible acts in his name, which include the torture of the Longbottoms and Peter's betrayal of the Potters, which led to the Potters' deaths and Sirius's imprisonment.

Yet how many times does Harry feel a surge of righteous rage towards him? How many times does Harry fixate on Tom and blame him for everything wrong in his life? Yes, he sometimes thinks about how it's due to Voldemort that he has to live with the Dursleys and how Voldemort ruined many lives. But does he think of such things with the same seething hatred that he reserves for Snape? Pettigrew was the one who betrayed Harry's parents, leading to their deaths. How often does Harry think about him?

And even if you can make the case that those things all happened when Harry was a baby, then what about Bellatrix? She killed Sirius, whom Harry was old enough to know and love. Yet how many times does Harry curse her name? Sure, he tries to cast the Cruciatus Curse at her instantly after Sirius dies, but afterwards? When he sees her dueling Molly, does he feel an instinctive rush of hatred for her? No.

Instead, who gets the brunt of Harry's hatred? Snape. Peter betrayed the Potters and Voldemort killed them, but let's hate Snape for leaking the prophecy. Bellatrix killed Sirius, but let's hate Snape for sneering at him.

And what were Snape's crimes? What did he do to earn Harry's hatred, to rank below a traitor and a genocidal despot and a murderous fanatic?

He sneered at Harry and embarrassed him in class. Which is not nice and I wouldn't want Snape as my teacher, but...really, this is the boy who's supposed to teach Voldemort about love? A boy who cares more about a mean teacher taking points than a psychopath who wants him dead? Who cares more about a jerk who gives him detention than the people who killed his loved ones?

One reason that the HP fandom hated Umbridge more than Voldemort was because Umbridge was more in Harry's face than Tom was, but at least Umbridge actually did terrible things. She forced Harry to carve words onto his skin and tried to shut him up. And yet she's a one-book menace who briefly comes back to cause trouble in DH, but is quickly dealt with, while Snape earns Harry's undying hatred book after book simply for being unpleasant.

If the series was just a light children's romp in a magical boarding school, then, yes, a mean teacher could be the worst thing that the hero had to face. But then the books bring in war and politics and prejudice and yet their hero still thinks that his mean teacher is the worst person ever? Even after he sees how badly the Marauders treated Snape, he still brushes it aside and jumps back into hating Snape. And yet we're supposed to admire his ability to love?

/it makes no damn sense to me how a teenage boy wouldn't be weirded out by the man they hated being obsessed with their dead mom/

Yes, Harry's complete lack of reaction to the news was too unrealistic for me. I know that there's a war going on, but that's never stopped Harry from fuming about Snape before. Now he learns that Snape was obsessed with his mother for no reason and yet he doesn't react at all?

/JKR telling us how perfect Lily Evans was/

Or how pathetic Snape is. He can't be moral in his own right; he has to be forever pining away for a hypocrite who treated him like dirt in order to do something right for once, and then magnanimously forgiven by her son who's hated his guts for years.

Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Yet how many times does Harry feel a surge of righteous rage towards him? How many times does Harry fixate on Tom and blame him for everything wrong in his life?

There was that moment in HBP when Harry tells Dumbledore he wants Voldemort finished, all the while Dumbledore praises Harry for never having the slightest desire to be one of Voldemort's followers. It's a strange chapter for me; Dumbledore acknowledging Harry's furious desire for revenge while praising his ability to love. It's one of the few times Harry acknowledges his hatred for Voldemort head-on.

Yet how many times does Harry curse [Bellatrix's] name? Sure, he tries to cast the Cruciatus Curse at her instantly after Sirius dies, but afterwards?

Yes, you'd think Harry would have as much of a furious desire for vengeance or justice against the woman who took down his godfather. But he has more ire towards Snape for goading Sirius instead of the Death Eater who directly murdered him.

And what were Snape's crimes? What did he do to earn Harry's hatred, to rank below a traitor and a genocidal despot and a murderous fanatic?

I believe it was mary_j_59 who mentioned that Snape was Harry's adversary in daily life, not Voldemort. Voldemort is the distant monster Harry has to exterminate, while Snape is the human adversary Harry deals with on a regular basis - proximate and personal. I think it's easier for Harry to direct his hatred towards Snape because Snape is someone Harry has to see routinely in Hogwarts unlike Voldemort. From the POV of a child or teenager, it makes sense for Harry to be more focused on immediate cruel comments from a spiteful teacher than the threat of Voldemort lurking in the background. But you bring up a good point here:

If the series was just a light children's romp in a magical boarding school, then, yes, a mean teacher could be the worst thing that the hero had to face. But then the books bring in war and politics and prejudice and yet their hero still thinks that his mean teacher is the worst person ever?

When I first read the books, I thought the purpose of building up Harry's hatred of Snape was to present the eventual reveal that Harry was wrong about Snape's role in the war. It would be a learning moment for Harry to realize that the man who was an awful teacher, an ex-death eater, and an unpleasant person wasn't actually evil to the core. It kind of happened, but in a very anticlimactic way. No confrontation, no conflict, no reconciliation, no introspection on Harry's side - it was all done quick and easy through watching Snape's memories. And then Harry went off to die, kill Voldemort, and that was it.

It's really, really strange to me how JKR built up this intense animosity and prejudice between Snape and Harry, and then let it fizzle out with a small bit of acknowledgment through the naming of 'Albus Severus.' I never expected the two of them to become best buds, but I did expect something more consequential in Harry's character arc. I know some people were against Harry and Snape reconciling because it would've been too "cheesy"...but if you're going to write the hero as a loving Christ-like figure, compassion for one's enemies - for the people who don't "deserve" it - is part of the package. Other than sparing Peter and saving Draco, Harry doesn't show much compassion for his foes. Dumbledore even discourages Harry for sympathizing with Tom.

Re: Part 1

[sunnyskywalker]

Fred and George taunted Sirius about staying safe at home too. But Harry couldn't spare any hatred for them. He had another, safer target for that!

I do wonder whether Snape was a "safe" target for hatred in a sense. He's unpleasant and lots of people don't like him, so Harry doesn't have to feel bad or conflicted about hating him. They're never on friendly terms, so he doesn't have to grapple with how to feel about someone he likes and trusts doing bad things. And after the first book, he has Dumbledore's reassurance that no matter how mean Snape is, he won't try to kill Harry. So he can safely hate Snape without any painful conflict or self-examination or fear of Snape treating him any worse than he already does. Any negative feelings he has about James and co., Dumbledore, the Twins, or just about anyone else can be safely displaced onto Snape. What a relief--in the short term. Not such a helpful response in the long term, but in the Potterverse, growing up doesn't require learning how to think long term.

Re: Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Fred and George taunted Sirius about staying safe at home too. But Harry couldn't spare any hatred for them. He had another, safer target for that!

Yes, Sirius already felt restless in his home, with or without Snape's sneering. Why would Sirius care about proving himself to Snape? The man he had no respect for and traded insults with like they were schoolboys again?

If Snape's to blame for being derisive, then Harry's to blame for being reckless, rushing off into a trap, and putting himself in a dangerous situation which compelled Sirius to finally act. Regardless, I don't put the blame on either of them for Sirius' death. It was Sirius' decision to leave, and it was Bellatrix who killed him.

But Snape is a safe target for hatred, as you've said. So it's simpler for Harry to condemn the man he loathes rather than consider the other obvious factors which led to Sirius being killed. If Harry initially blamed Snape out of anger and grief, it would make sense for his character. After some time, as a sign of growth and character development, Harry should've realized he couldn't place guilt on Snape alone (or at all).

But growth and character development don't exist in the HP world, so... who needs things like self-examination and learning how to think in the long-term? XD

Part 2

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Now he learns that Snape was obsessed with his mother for no reason and yet he doesn't react at all?

I think this was another case of JKR treating her characters like plot devices. Snape fulfilled his role in getting the info to Harry, and then was discarded. Harry saw the memories, learned the truth, and then had to go and fulfill the rest of the plot to keep the story moving.

Or how pathetic Snape is. He can't be moral in his own right; he has to be forever pining away for a hypocrite who treated him like dirt in order to do something right for once, and then magnanimously forgiven by her son who's hated his guts for years.

I don't think JKR cared for any of her Slytherin characters, but she disliked Snape in particular. Having Snape redeem himself through his own choices and not be dependent on another Gryffindor would've been blasphemous in JKR's eyes. His redemption wasn't written well because JKR herself did not have compassion for Snape as a character. Redeeming a character requires believing in the good within them, and JKR clearly did not believe Snape could be capable of good on his own. Hence, the obsession over Lily, the manipulation by Dumbledore, and the off-screen forgiveness from Harry.

Sorry for the long 2-part comment, but I agree with you all the way!

Re: Part 2

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

I also think it was because she needed a "good" motivation for Snape. And by good, I don't mean a motive that made sense, but one that made it absolutely impossible for Snape to renege on it and go back to Voldemort. Moreover, she needed a fairytale motive.

Snape's title (The Half-Blood Prince) bears an obvious resemblance to fairy tales (Prince Charming rescuing the princess after a hundred years asleep, braving untold dangers for her sake). In this case, of course, Snape has no hope of rescuing his beloved physically, since she's been killed by the villain. But as long as she remains "alive" for him, in the form of the doe patronus, and in one Harry James Potter, the same principle still holds. According to this logic - or lack thereof - it's much more powerful and redemptive that Snape is under the "spell" of his abiding love for Lily.

The Hallows are also examples of fairy-tale logic applying to a series that was trying to be increasingly dark and gritty. Suddenly these artefacts come back out of legend and fall into the protag's lap? Why couldn't the cloak be just a cloak?

Re: Part 2

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

According to this logic - or lack thereof - it's much more powerful and redemptive that Snape is under the "spell" of his abiding love for Lily.

I do wonder if JKR was going for a powerful pure "fairy tale" love which brought a bit of "princely" goodness within a dark troubled man. It's interesting how different fans interpret it. Some fans believe Snape's love for Lily wasn't love at all, but an obsession or infatuation which inadvertently caused him to accomplish something decent in his life. I agree with you and think that JKR was going for the former (fairy tale motive) in an attempt to make Snape at least somewhat redeemable, but I think she did it terribly. Snape's love for Lily doesn't come across as powerful and romantic, but pitiful and pathetic. I'd find it more profound if Snape was capable of good of his own volition and not because he couldn't let go of his perfect childhood crush. But JKR adores her idea of having love be the answer to everything wonderful and pure in the world, so Snape had to remain an obedient "knight" to his one and only lady love. He wasn't worth it on his own, I guess.

And I do find it illogical how Snape, a character who is consistently portrayed as deeply spiteful and unforgiving, would be obsessed with a girl who chose his group of bullies over him. It makes sense for him to grieve for Lily and feel great guilt over her death, but I find it odd how someone so spiteful would continue to hold an undying love for Lily even after she left him and hooked up with his enemy. But Lily's never allowed to be in the wrong unlike Snape, James, Remus, Sirius, Peter, and every other flawed character in her benevolent presence.

Ugh sorry, my ranting about this knows no bounds lol. I've tried and tried to find something to like about Lily being Snape's only motivation but I just...can't. I've never been a fan of one character acting as a "morality guide" or symbol of purity for another character, which is essentially what Lily ended up being for all the men in her life. James was changed by marrying her, Snape dedicated his entire life to her, and Harry was saved by her unique love protection.

Good point about the Hallows being another fairy tale aspect in the books. Just as the whole re-framing of wand ownership seemed convoluted to me, the sudden strong focus on magical relics seemed a convenient way for JKR to give Harry advantages over Voldemort he wouldn't have on his own, regardless of his "ability to love" or not.

The last book really disappointed me with how it handled Harry, Dumbledore, Snape, and Voldemort's characters. So many missed opportunities for interesting character development thrown aside in favor of writing ridiculously opportune plot devices to help the hero in the last minute....

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

“Instead, who gets the brunt of Harry's hatred? Snape. Peter betrayed the Potters and Voldemort killed them, but let's hate Snape for leaking the prophecy. Bellatrix killed Sirius, but let's hate Snape for sneering at him.

And what were Snape's crimes? What did he do to earn Harry's hatred, to rank below a traitor and a genocidal despot and a murderous fanatic?”

Late reply, but rereading old sporks of DH has got me thinking about how Harry’s emotions are very close to the surface, he has a hair-trigger temper, he lacks empathy, he is impulsive, he develops something of a violent streak as the series goes on, and he’s quite self-centred. Especially towards the end of the series.

Snape is a trigger for Harry. Not only is he right in Harry’s face for six years, he is also a convenient target/outlet because of his curt demeanour, his high standards in a subject Harry cannot be bothered with, and (in Harry’s defence) his awarding Harry zero on at least one occasion for perfectly adequate Potion-making. Not always at a conscious level, either: Harry no doubt suffers from, among other things, PTSD and high anxiety. He trusts some authority figures (Sirius, Dd) far too quickly. Furthermore, in fifth year, the invasive, vague manner in which Snape teaches him Occlumency doesn’t help matters. (Though, even then, Harry gets his own back in SWM, albeit not with the results he’s expecting.)

Dumbledore, who has done much worse, is also under Harry’s nose at school. But because Dumbledore is nice to him, until DH Harry is so blind to Dd’s faults that he takes everything that comes out of his mouth as gospel. It’s only when he’s dead (out of sight, again) that H starts to question his motivations — and even then, he chooses to be not a Doubting Thomas but “Dumbledore’s man through and through”.

Pettigrew, Bellatrix and the other DEs are out of sight, out of mind; Voldemort likewise. Harry doesn’t care about the plight of the werewolves, or any of the Muggles and Muggleborns slaughtered, because they don’t affect him personally. From a Doylist POV, it’s not as sexy to have Harry actually stand up for the rights of Muggles and Muggleborns, or plausibly fight a competent villain, as it is to have him doing things like unlocking secret chambers, pulling swords out of hats and fighting off a hundred dementors at once. JKR can’t seem to make up her mind about the genre/tone of the books, either. There is serious Genre Whiplash going on. Are they traditional boarding school books with purely school-based problems? Or are they epics whose focus is on vanquishing a powerful dark wizard? As late as HBP, we have Harry sitting passively at school trying to work out the author of his. mysterious Potions textbook, as if Dark Lords and prophecies were trifles.

Really, he does whatever the author wants him to. One minute he loses it at Sirius because he thinks he killed his parents. The next, he can’t be bothered to expend any effort on defeating LV, one of the two people who is responsible for one of the greatest tragedies of his life.

Dumbly has stuffed up H’s life far more pervasively by:

a) needlessly placing Harry at PD in the first place and not bothering to check up on him (don’t tell me Arabella Figg was anything but a failsafe, and Mundungus obviously didn’t take his duty seriously).

b) lying through his teeth about it, rather than fessing up to Harry that he should’ve handled things differently

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Pettigrew, Bellatrix and the other DEs are out of sight, out of mind; Voldemort likewise/

So, all that Snape had to do was to leave Hogwarts after first year and Harry would stop hating him so much? Yeah, that bodes well for a boy with 'the power of love.'

/Harry doesn’t care about the plight of the werewolves, or any of the Muggles and Muggleborns slaughtered, because they don’t affect him personally/

Which is where the whole disconnect with the themes of racism comes in. Voldemort is bad for hating Muggles and Muggle-borns, but the only Muggles that Harry knows are ones that he hates (the Dursleys). The only Muggle-born that Harry is really close to is Hermione and the most pushback at school that she gets is from Draco, who already dislikes her and mostly just calls her names. It's only in COS and DH where she's placed in serious danger, and Bellatrix would've tortured her anyway just for being Harry's friend. And Harry himself is neither Muggle-born nor Muggle and nobody gives him grief for being a half-blood (except for Bellatrix's one line in OOTP).

/it’s not as sexy to have Harry actually stand up for the rights of Muggles and Muggleborns/

True, but then why put that stuff in there if you're not going to address it? Hermione tries to stand up for house elf rights, but that's treated as a joke and then ultimately dismissed.

/Are they traditional boarding school books with purely school-based problems? Or are they epics whose focus is on vanquishing a powerful dark wizard?/

I wonder what would've happened if Harry had gone to school with Tom, as he's done in fanfics and as the hero has done in other fantasy books. There would be the focus on school problems, but since Tom would end up becoming a dark wizard, the series could delve more and more into a fantasy epic as the books got darker.

/Really, he does whatever the author wants him to. One minute he loses it at Sirius because he thinks he killed his parents/

And the next minute, he yells at Snape and calls him pathetic for hating Sirius. And after they all knock Snape out, he tells Lupin that "I'm still not saying I believe you."

So, you can be a murderer and a traitor, but if Snape doesn't like you, you're still better than him in Harry's book. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

/The next, he can’t be bothered to expend any effort on defeating LV, one of the two people who is responsible for one of the greatest tragedies of his life/

It's not just Harry. Sirius broke out of Azkaban and he and Remus were all set to kill Peter in front of the Trio because they so badly wanted revenge for Lily and James.

Then comes the next book: "Peter? Who's he?"

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

You’re quite right that it’s like a fan forum. JKR likes Harry, Hermione and Dumbledore to the extent that she can’t see their faults and gives them informed attributes that are in direct contradiction to the text. The way she sees them is not congruent with at least some of their behaviour in canon.

Even Snape, the most complex of Rowling’s characters, gets this treatment. https://www.deviantart.com/cabepfir/art/Taming-the-Prince-66617660. In this essay caprefir says essentially that it was only after Umbridge had come onto the scene that JKR could allow herself to “redeem” Snape.

A similar essay below:

https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/lettersfromtitan.com/2011/07/11/harry-potter-severus-snape-as-a-representation-of-female-heroism/amp/

And, of course, there’s the Snape/Lily issue in and of itself. As I said in another comment, I don’t think Rowling sees any of her characters, except Dumbledore, as complex, flawed, fully realised agents of their own destinies. IOW they are plot devices rather than developed characters. If JKR’s plot requires Harry to be selfish, he is; if the emo!capslock!Harry we saw in OOTP, he is that too. He isn’t a fully realised character by any means.

Duh, you’re right about PoA, got the timelines mixed up. I went back and reread properly, and Peter does as good as admit his guilt. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here, but the Potters’ justification for swapping Secret Keepers doesn’t make any sense. The retcon in DH aside (people are able to be their own Secret Keepers), I still don’t understand why they needed to switch from Sirius to Peter if the Fidelius charm isn’t breakable by torture.

If it *is* breakable by torture, do what Chantaldormand suggested (https://deathtocapslock.livejournal.com/341663.html#comments), and make three people SKs.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I want to jump in the middle of your conversation with aikaterini to say that the essays you posted are interesting and bring up the connections between Slytherin and femininity in the series. Gryffindor does seem like a representation of the more masculine type of heroics, while Slytherin encompasses traits that are deemed "lesser" due to their emphasis on cunning, subtlety, manipulation, and working from the shadows, rather than an in-your-face boldness and chivalry.

Edit: It also makes me wonder if this is why JKR played off and excused Dumbledore's manipulative side; he's a Gryffindor and the epitome of good, so any manipulation from him is justified and perfectly fine, unlike those selfish slimy Slytherins. As long as it's for the greater good, everything is fine: Dumbledore's cold and callous chess master tendencies, Snape's single and pitiful fixation on a crush aka ~True Looove~....

As for Snape's complexity, as the years went on, I had started to believe that JKR never intended for Snape to be that complex of a character. He came close, but it was his fans that saw him as deeper and more complicated than he was. I believe JKR intended Snape to be nothing more than a 2-dimensional tragic terrible man whose sole "redeeming" feature was his worship of a Gryffindor girl. JKR never liked or cared about her Slytherin characters - they existed only to bring opposition to Harry and to make him look good and heroic in contrast. Snape couldn't live and/or redeem himself on his own because that would've gone against JKR's strong distaste for Slytherin and their demoralization in the text.

This leads into a quote that stuck with me from the first essay:

No living Snape is allowed a confrontation with Harry or with other characters. Thus, Deathly Hallows displays a constant displacement of Snape from the main action, confining him to the beginning and the end of the narrative, bringing his voice to silence, precluding him to steal the scene to Rowling’s best loved creatures. After a dead Snape, no more able to threaten Harry/JKR’s present, Rowling can even name Harry Potter’s second son.

I admit, I have a hard time understanding why many Snape fans like the way his redemption was handled in DH. To me, Snape's death in the Shack and the reveal of his Lily-centered motives did nothing to redeem him. It was another way for JKR to give an example of a Slytherin character being dubious at best, and more praise heaped upon a Gryffindor character. Lily ends up being the star of the show, not Snape - it's Lily's wonderfulness and perfection that is emphasized, while Snape is shown as pathetic, weak, damaged, and selfish. Complimenting his bravery is another way of emphasizing the "correct" type of heroics that Gryffindors embody and are awarded for. Snape is not redeemed because of his own choices as a person or for utilizing his Slytherin traits.

And Harry naming his son after Snape was less about Snape himself and more about showing Harry's ability to forgive and heal from the past. Again, this supports my theory that Snape was forgiven in the books, but not redeemed or saved by his adolescent idealization of Lily.

To reiterate what I've mentioned in other comments, it's easier to write Harry forgiving Snape if the terrible teacher is long dead and gone. Killing Snape off gave JKR an easy and nonthreatening way out of writing difficult scenes of Snape still alive and still as bitter as ever. Having Harry forgive a living Snape was probably impossible for JKR to envision, so as the quote implies above, Snape had to be permanently silenced and displaced after he finished his role as a plot device.

Also, Snape being alive wouldn't have fit in JKR's sugary sweet ending of an epilogue. He's a character that represents brokenness, trauma, ambiguity, and all sorts of painful and challenging things that cannot neatly fit into the "all was well" safe ending.

As for the Secret Keepers, I'm going to keep it simple and say that it's a mistake on Rowling's part. She doesn't go back and reread her books, so she probably ended up making a misjudgment or error in the text herself.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

c) never actually taking Harry to a counsellor. Never teaching Harry to reflect on his actions, unite the houses, develop proper social skills, curb his recklessness or any other interpersonal or life skill ever. The closest he comes is all that “It is our choices that make us who we are” guff, and that is mixed in with a lot of absolute rubbish about the Harry’s super-speshul power of wuv. For a loving protag, Harry sure is an arsehole most of the time. Actually, the lessons about Tom are a decent exercise in empathy, but they’re also laced with “Tom was evil and irredeemable anyway, because he became LV”.

Dumbledore, if our choices make us who we are, why is Tom painted as a lost cause? There is no moral lesson in this (“So-and-so had XYZ faults just like you, but he reformed and you can too, if you put your mind to it.”) The point of the lessons is to make clear that Harry is Not Like The Dark Lord, Not At All, because of his mother’s undying love for him. Since Tom’s mother didn’t love him enough to sacrifice her life for him in pitched battle, he and Harry are of course chalk and cheese.

d) hiring teachers like Lockhart (incompetent) or Quirrell (possessed)

Harry capslocks spectacularly at Sirius in PoA, when he thinks Sirius is guilty, but after Sirius proclaims his innocence and is vetted by Dumbledore, Harry doesn’t even mention his kidnapping of Ron, who is Harry’s best friend of three years, as a reason to distrust Sirius. At the end of PoA Harry is ready to pack up and live with Sirius at a moment’s notice. Never mind that Sirius is probably lying. Never mind that he’s in no fit mental or physical condition to care for himself, let alone Harry, who also has some serious issues. Because Bumbledore has okayed Sirius, he’s suddenly alright in Harry’s book. The one thing Dd does “right” is not allowing Harry to live with Sirius at Grimmauld Place. And I suspect that is only so he can control Harry better.

Harry is quite justifiably upset at Pettigrew, but for all his righteous anger at his parents’ death, he never thinks to find out why the Potters couldn’t have been SKs themselves, or why they switched SKs in the first place (Sirius’ justification is, frankly, bullshit).

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Actually, the lessons about Tom are a decent exercise in empathy, but they’re also laced with “Tom was evil and irredeemable anyway, because he became LV”/

The thing is that this also may be due to Genre Whiplash. For example, Sauron is the main villain of "Lord of the Rings." But Gollum and the Ring evoke more personal emotion with Frodo and Sam because they're right there with them and because Gollum is a reminder of what Frodo could be if he succumbs to the temptation of the Ring. There is no attempt to evoke any similarities between Sauron and Frodo. They aren't given similar backstories or personalities. They don't even get to really meet face to face or talk. In fact, the notable thing about the whole conflict between them is how different they are. Frodo's a small, humble hobbit from a quiet village who has no interest in ruling anything. The whole point about Frodo being the hero is that he's someone that Sauron underestimates because he's nothing like what Sauron would expect.

Voldemort is the main villain of HP and he's outfitted with a lot of common Dark Lord traits: has followers, dresses in black, wishes to conquer the wizarding world, etc. But then we meet him as a child and a teenager, and we see the similarities between him and Harry. But then, once we think that this is going somewhere, it doesn't. Voldemort is still the typical Dark Lord, none of what Harry sees makes any real difference except to offer clues about what he's up to (Horcruxes).

/Dumbledore, if our choices make us who we are, why is Tom painted as a lost cause?/

Because JKR wanted to make sure that the reader knew that Tom was a bad apple from the start. He was a 'funny baby', he killed animals, he had a hungry look on his face when Dumbledore tells him that he can do magic (not unlike the look of greed that Snape is described as having when he sees Lily and Petunia?), and he drove other children at the orphanage insane and stole their belongings. And that's all before he arrived at Hogwarts.

/The point of the lessons is to make clear that Harry is Not Like The Dark Lord/

It's basically like an argument that you'd find in fan forums. "So what if Tom grew up in an orphanage? Harry grew up with the Dursleys and you don't see him killing people." Even Harry's decision to say "Not Slytherin" when being Sorted is treated like this moral triumph in COS when, in reality, the only reason why he said no was because Hagrid told him that all bad wizards came from Slytherin (which was proven to be a lie). So, he made this grand moral decision based on a lie. And yet somehow that makes him morally superior to Tom, who presumably knew nothing about Slytherin House.

/because of his mother’s undying love for him. Since Tom’s mother didn’t love him enough to sacrifice her life for him in pitched battle/

The argument put forward by Harry seems to be that if Merope had worried more about keeping herself and her son alive than being upset that her husband left her, then she wouldn't have lost her magic. Or she should've tried harder to keep her magic instead of giving into her depression. Even though we've only seen two instances of this: Merope and Tonks. Neville never loses his magic whenever he's upset.

But, yes, Merope would've been able to use her magic and thus save herself if she'd been stronger. Meanwhile, magical prodigy Lily, who was fully healthy by the time that Voldemort came calling, was so much stronger and braver than Merope that she barricaded the door with boxes and when that didn't work, pleaded with Voldemort to spare Harry and then threw herself in front of him when that didn't work. Because this awesome mother somehow forgot that she was a witch and could do magic. Yep, Merope's weak for letting her magic drain out of her because she's sad, but Lily is amazing for forgetting that she has magic at all.

/Because Bumbledore has okayed Sirius, he’s suddenly alright in Harry’s book/

Actually, Harry was all set to move in with Sirius before that. He tells Sirius that he'd be willing to live with him while they're all walking Peter towards the castle, before Lupin transforms.

[sunnyskywalker]

Why set such stock in a prophecy?

Because wizards don't have a strong literary culture, that's why. If they'd read Oedipus Rex and Macbeth, they would know better.

How exactly (and why?) does Lily’s sacrifice activate the magical force field around Quirrell?

I think Terri is on to a good idea with this one. She pointed out that Dumbledore says he added to Lily's protection somehow, and he misleads us all about which way around it is (in order to mislead Voldemort, presumably). Mother-love doesn't expire upon legal adulthood, but Dumbledore's special additions would. The skin-burning thing is Dumbledore's work. Lily's sacrifice gave Harry unnaturally good luck.