Love in HP
Feb. 6th, 2019 08:20 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
torchedsong.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockSince 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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2019-02-16 11:19 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2019-02-19 01:54 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2019-02-19 03:35 am (UTC)If I may be blunt, I think Hogwarts in general is screwed up. The crazy staircases, dangerous creatures, weird security measures, less than ideal teaching methods.... It makes for a fun fictional setting, but once you start applying "real life" standards to it, it gets wonky.
Which is why whenever someone bellows how Snape is a horrific child abuser who shouldn't be allowed to teach, I get a split reaction. On one hand, I agree that Snape is cruel and far from a great teacher. On the other hand, I see Snape's classroom persona as hyperbolic as the rest of the school. It's the inconsistent tone again. One minute, bullying is a serious problem presented in a realistic manner. The next minute, bullying is an amusing story device presented in a nonsensical manner.
If Dumbledore cared for the emotional well-being of his students, why hire such harsh teachers? Why not have Snape doing something else with his time before Voldemort returns? As an adult, yes, Snape should know better than to be mean to students. But as headmaster, Dumbledore should know better how to run his school and implement the right teachers.
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.
I remember the comment about the dog, but I never caught on to the possibility of Snape informing the Order and/or Dumbledore about the Dursleys mistreating Harry. As much as I like this idea, I don't think JKR had it in mind when Dumbledore tells off the Dursleys. Snape showing even an inkling of basic concern for Harry would be too "decent" for how canon Snape is meant to act. Which is probably another reason why the Occlumency lessons were written as a disaster that went nowhere. But that's my cynicism talking again.
no subject
Date: 2019-02-20 04:30 am (UTC)JKR might not have planned it, but it fits together. And physical danger does seem to register with Snape as bad, unlike pretty much anything verbal. You don't see him sending kids into a forest of deadly monsters or making stand out in the halls to be murdered as punishment, after all. (Though in this case, the Dursleys calling Harry a freak and dressing him in embarrassing clothes is something Snape can identify with, so maybe that registers with him too.)
He might not be as alarmed as we would be, given how violent Hogwarts is, but I think it's plausible that Harry's relatives setting a vicious dog on him was enough to make him go, "Hm, I thought Dumbledore said we were protecting him? Maybe he needs reminding. And Petunia too, that cow. If his own relatives kill him off, all this will have been for nothing!"