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: 2019-03-22 05:25 am (UTC)I think the Lily thing is incredibly unrealistic and comes out of left field. It does kind of make sense when looked at from a certain perspective, which is probably the perspective a lot of Snape fans have:
a) Snape is quite young even in PS, had an abusive childhood and really had no chance to form real friendships
b) Snape doesn’t really have the maturity to move on from things like James nearly killing him.
c) Lily is therefore the closest thing to romantic love that he has ever received. He’s therefore fixated on her, after a fashion.
d) In all other spheres of his life, he’s discontented (he missed out on his favoured career due to throwing himself on DD’s mercy); he doesn’t appear to have friends due to his sunny personality
d) They like the romantic, angsty fairytale justice of it. “After all this time? Always.”
And according to JKR, Snape ‘imprinted on’ Lily. Really, that’s the only way to describe it. So, this ‘justifies’ the carrying-on of Lily-into-Harry.
“Harry, Hermione, Ron, the Weasley twins, and Dumbledore are all shown as occasionally cunning, ambitious, and ruthless. But, since they're Gryffindors, their crafty and driven ways are considered good or neutral. Slytherins represent the bad or "dark" side of ambition and cunning. Therefore, they have to be weak, selfish, dumb, evil, and/or morally dubious.”
Very well said. I entirely agree with you about the way Slyths’ negative characteristics are always used to flavour their characters in unsavoury ways, and the potentially positive characteristics (such as house loyalty, ambition, and indeed self-centredness) are flipped and used against them, character-wise.
Slyth is only allowed to have negative characteristics, whereas Gryff!Harry’s Parseltongue comes in handy. Gryffs’ and Puffs’ demonstration of other houses’ characteristics (Harry and Ron’s loyalty to their families, Ernie’s pomposity) are treated as neutral. If anything, Draco has more reason to be loyal to his family because he’s been raised by them. Harry never knew his family, so it’s not that he should hate them or anything, but he should at least understand why Draco doesn’t hate the Malfoys (and by the same token, Draco should display some empathy towards the Weasleys). Harry (and by ext the narratorial voice) has very poor theory of mind, and he lacks empathy.
Draco‘s loyalty is not loyalty unless it is to the ‘right’ side and the plot requires it. Nor Snape’s.
no subject
Date: 2019-03-22 08:41 am (UTC)Snape did exemplify the "Good Is Not Nice" trope to the zenith in PS/SS. Having the mean and cruel teacher not be the villain behind everything was an intriguing direction for a children's book. And yes, his role as a spy provided an extra fascination to his character.
I do have sympathy for Snape despite his many harsh flaws. His life, as you've pointed out, was full of misery, abuse, loneliness, bad choices, bad circumstances, and all around unhappiness. It makes sense how he'd "imprint" on Lily because of her being the one close friend he had, but I still find it disappointing (and unrealistic) to have his entire reasoning for doing everything be a childhood crush.
Maybe it depends on how fans of Snape perceived or interpreted his character beforehand. I admittedly never saw Snape as a romantic, sensitive, or even tragic figure prior to DH. Morose, stunted, and sympathetic to an extent? Yes. A sentimental man driven by an undying unrequited love and nothing else? No. I saw Snape as a bitter and dark survivor of sorts; greatly flawed and focused on self-preservation, but also capable of stepping away from true evil when it went too far. Maybe there was some truth to that, but I think canon!Snape ended up being a lot more "emo" (for a lack of a better word lol) than I thought he would be. His redemption didn't work for me because I didn't find it romantic and poignant like many Snape fans did.
Then again, I found about 98% of the romances written by JKR to be boring, trite, or downright awful. The only couple I found to be okay was Arthur/Molly (and maybe Bill/Fleur). The rest? Ron/Hermione were meh. Harry/Ginny were terrible with barely any development or chemistry. Remus/Tonks were a mess and not an entertaining mess either. James/Lily were dead before the story began, so I never cared about them. Hermione/Krum were kind of cute but didn't matter much. Harry/Cho didn't matter either. The way JKR wrote her romances didn’t appeal to me at all, so it's no surprise I found Snape/Lily to be such a dull dud too and a diminishing of Snape's character by making him all about his Lily "Always" Love.
It's so damn strange because I'm often teased for being an emotional sap in real life. Maybe I'm deader inside than I thought? XD
And yes once more to Slytherins not getting the chance to show off their own House traits in a positive or skillful way. Hermione gets to be ruthless with no problems. Dumbledore is a manipulative mastermind and praised to high heavens for it. Harry can be sneaky, sly, and snarky and is all the more charming for it. The Weasley twins are driven and have their dreams of opening a shop come true. Ron is ambitious and envious of others’ success, and while it causes him to clash with Harry, it’s never presented as nefarious enough to break their pure and strong friendship.
Gryffindors can embody Slytherin traits in a positive or neutral manner, but Slytherins can’t embody their own House traits without being some flavor of evil, bad, and/or incompetent. Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs don’t really matter much either. Sure, they have some fun representation in the form of Luna, Cedric, and others, but they obviously take a backseat when it comes to the Gryffindor vs. Slytherin animosity.