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}
Part 1
Date: 2019-02-20 12:30 am (UTC)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
Date: 2019-02-20 04:41 am (UTC)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
Date: 2019-02-20 08:43 am (UTC)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