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]

Nice catch on the contrast between her behaviour in front of LV and her behaviour with James et al.

Unfortunately, I think JKR’s idea of writing well-rounded female characters begins and ends with Hermione, and even she has very little softness or kindness about her (that we see in canon). She is one of the boys, and in fact, I think all of the Trio (actually, most of Rowling’s characters, to be fair) have “the emotional range of a teaspoon”. JKR simply doesn’t know how to write healthy friendships involving women. Hermione’s relationship with Ron is full of bickering; we don’t see enough of Lily’s friendship with Severus, and that which we do see isn’t convincing.

For PS she was intended to be the sacrificial lamb (Muggleborn), so the sacrifice had to be magic-less to highlight her double vulnerability (mother-with-child, and helpless Muggleborn). She was meant to be reminiscent of the Madonna figure to the baby Jesus: archetypal mother.

But in OotP she had to be ~strong and sassy~ to the popular, mean boys, which apparently, in JKR’s book, means unfeeling and insulting.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on how JKR struggles to write well-rounded female characters beyond Hermione. Hermione, Luna, and McGonagall were the only women who I liked from the books, and even they aren't anything extraordinary. And while the male characters have plenty of problems too, JKR puts some effort in giving them a modicum of depth. The men are also more important to the overall story.

It does seem like for some writers, portraying women as badass means making them either unfeeling or impetuous, with the only emotions indicating "strength" being anger or annoyance. But, only in a sassy, cutesy, or funny sort of way; real wrath and terrifying anger from women is too uncomfortable to show in a serious manner. Men's anger is often shown as something to be feared, while women's anger is some blend of cheeky or admirable for Girl Power's sake.

On that point, I still don't know what to make of the scene of Hermione siccing birds on Ron to hurt him in HBP. Whether JKR meant it to be humorous because Hermione lost her cool and Ron got his "comeuppance" or if it was meant to show how tough Hermione was... Either way, I hated that scene and how unnecessarily abusive it was.

And then there's the cattiness from Hermione and Ginny to Fleur. There's very little positive female friendships in the books. Hermione and Ginny aren't as close to one another as Ron and Harry are, and Hermione seems to look down on her female peers (Luna, Parvati, Lavender) quite frequently. For all the talk about how Hermione is a feminist character, it's a shame Hermione isn't shown connecting with other girls. But I understand it's Harry's story and we can't see everything that goes on behind the scenes.

Good point about Lily's initial role as a vulnerable victim/mother. Lily's transformation from passive victim in PS/SS to sassy popular chick in OOTP is reminiscent to Ginny's transformation. Ginny in COS was a bashful, quiet, and ordinary girl who needed to be rescued by her heroic crush. But in OOTP, all of a sudden, she's a spunky, feisty, and hot-tempered Quidditch player who gets a lot of male attention. She has a powerful and special bat-bogey hex, a sassy disposition, flaming red hair, and a flowery smell that drives Harry and his chest monster wild.

I definitely believe that JKR wanted Harry/Ginny to be the second coming of James/Lily, so Ginny had to get a personality change to not only be worthy of Harry, but to resemble vivacious and strong Lily. The physical resemblance is also kind of creepy.

But even tough chick Ginny, just like Lily, is regulated back to being a passive lady on the sidelines. Harry breaks up with her to protect her and then goes on a dangerous mission without her. Just like James was the one who ran out to face Voldemort before being killed. Lily went upstairs and just screamed helplessly. They're "tough" when telling off their school peers, but when facing a real threat? Not so much.

Edit: Although, to be fair to Ginny, she does face off against Death Eaters in OOTP and DH. Then again, the DEs aren't always portrayed as super formidable opponents besides Bellatrix. And even Bella is taken down by Molly Weasley of all people....

I sometimes feel guilty for disliking Ginny and Lily so much because as people, they're not bad or awful. But as fictional characters? I can't stand them and I think a lot of it has to do with how the author tries so hard to make them perfect and untouchable. Perfect characters don't interest me in the slightest and the more the author tries to shove down my throat how I must worship this particular character, the less I give a damn about them. Maybe it's childish or spiteful of me...but oh well.

Sorry for the long post, but it's very cathartic having this discussion. I don't encounter many HP fans who see eye-to-eye with me on these topics. XD

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

That’s a really good point, especially about the fear. It’s true in most pop culture. Men’s anger, sadness and suffering (in fiction!) can be imposing, intimidating and atmospheric in a way women’s is not necessarily allowed to be. This is why I love Alan Rickman’s Snape - he pulls off a dark, brooding, even melancholy sort of character that is very compelling. And... there is a romantic, gothic quality about these male characters that is consistently absent in female characters. I feel that particularly because of the female readership of some of these books, there is a strong desire to love, fix or comfort a man who acts in such a way; the character is admired, held up as an Iron Woobie or Broken Bird character. There may be an element of identification with the character in their loneliness/pain/misery.

I can think of several male characters the fandom perceives like this. There’s Snape, for one, and Lupin for another (from the first introduction, he’s quiet, soft-spoken, obviously poor, obviously suffering). Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock is another example, and John Watson from the same series is probably a third. Tobias from the Animorphs also qualifies (yes, let’s ignore the fact that he’s thirteen in the books: he still has Woobie elements for me, at least).

Male characters are allowed the space for vulnerability (anger counts). For me, at least, there is a sense that these male characters are justified in their suffering, that it ennobles them. In contrast, the female characters are rarely allowed to indulge emotions that tend towards the romantic-tragic/Keatsian. Lupin’s outward softness masks a horrific monster, and yet readers feel sympathy for him.
Snape is all crunchy shell and gooey interior (Aww, look, he and Lily really did love each other), as is Sirius. In PoA the latter is almost skeletal and more than a little mentally unstable; by OotP he is the lovable prankster and quasi-father figure whom Harry grieves so much. He’s not father of the year, but he’s at least functional. Both James and Neville develop offscreen (in James’ case, it isn’t known whether he matured at all - as Terri & others have pointed out, for all Lily knew, he could’ve been a complete pillock behind Lily’s back.

By contrast Millicent, Fleur, Luna and Pansy don’t undergo development, not even “pastede on yay” development.

Imagine if Fleur Delacour had broken down and become a recluse after Bill had been attacked at the end of HBP (or perhaps if Bill had died) — if she had harboured a quiet, simmering, brooding rage and sought revenge by retreating to France and planning for thirteen years. (Imagine, in other words, if she’d come over all Snape-ish.) I’m quite sure it would’ve been treated by other characters as irrational: either part of her innate Veela magic, or as a woman refusing to listen to reason. She wouldn’t have been a DE spy, she would’ve vanished from the story.

Instead JKR has her protest - to Molly! - that she doesn’t care about Bill’s disability and wants to stay with him. Which is a great testament to her loyalty considering how catty the Weasleys, Harry and Hermione have all been towards her. I actually like that JKR included this scene and it’s a fine example of how she really does love Bill, but she isn’t, as you say, allowed to show us any aspect of her emotions other than tears and loyalty/acceptance. Perhaps because of Harry’s POV, we don’t get a full sense of her grieving process. And we don’t see her and Bill again until Harry does.

We aren’t even told whether Lavender is alive or dead after being bitten. Yet Lupin is front & centre in PoA, and prominent in HBP and DH.

I’d argue there are no female friendships in the books at all, except for background ones like Lavender and Parvati.

As I think I mentioned before, I hated Luna. I hate her in most fanfics I’ve read, too, so maybe it’s just me. But she’s the Manic Pixie Girl par excellence & never seems to get past that stage. She contributes nothing to the plot, never develops and yet everyone adores her. The only thing I like about her is Evanna Lynch’s portrayal.

So we have Lily’s outburst, and then a similar one from Hermione. Both of their reactions to their supposed best friends and love interests are vastly out of proportion to the “crime”.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Male characters are allowed the space for vulnerability (anger counts). For me, at least, there is a sense that these male characters are justified in their suffering, that it ennobles them. In contrast, the female characters are rarely allowed to indulge emotions that tend towards the romantic-tragic/Keatsian.

Well said. I remember reading an article written by a woman where she spoke of how male characters are allowed to be complicated, messy, and greatly flawed without apology, while female characters are only allowed to be "Strong". Men are written like human beings, while women are written like they're meant to be role models. This inadvertently ends up making the male characters more compelling, interesting, and/or relatable because they're not always obligated to be Strong and Good all the time to be adequate role models for men and boys.

In HP, it's mainly the men who move the story forward and are given page time to express the profound emotions that motivate them in their lives - whether it's anger, melancholy, regret, guilt, hate, love, etc. Which brings me back to my Lily Problem; she's the only female member in the Marauders' Generation, and coincidentally, the only character portrayed as perfect as possible. James isn't always shown in a good light, and we all know the suffering Snape, Sirius, Remus, and Peter go through. But Lily is only allowed to be a Good Person, a Good Wife, and a Good Mother. She has no other purpose, and JKR never tarnishes Lily's pure reputation in the text in any way, unlike with the male characters that surround her who can be "impure" in their imperfections.

And that's an interesting point about Fleur and how she was written as another symbol of strength in relation to her injured husband. Her love for Bill is admirable and sweet, but it does seem like another example of a woman who has to be Good and Strong in the face of suffering, instead of showing any palpable and profound anguish.

As for female friendships, I know the fandom really likes Luna/Ginny. Ginny does give one of her children Luna's name (Lily Luna Potter) and I think protected Luna from being bullied once. But because it's Harry's story, we don't really get the chance to see any developing female friendships. They're in the background and sort of just there.

I like Luna and Evanna Lynch's portrayal of her, but you're right that she's a simple and straightforward character. She isn't a significant influence in the long-run and appears to inject some humor and quirkiness into certain moments. I like how Harry is calmer around her sometimes, but she could be taken out of the story, replaced with someone else, and not much would change.

So we have Lily’s outburst, and then a similar one from Hermione. Both of their reactions to their supposed best friends and love interests are vastly out of proportion to the “crime”.

I think, for me, the problem is less about their reactions being out of proportion, but more so how the author frames their reactions as being undeniably right. It was "right" for Hermione to attack Ron out of jealousy to show how he hurt her. It was "right" for Lily to leave behind her friend to be bullied and have his underpants stripped in front of a crowd because he said a bad word while being humiliated. Hermione isn't characterized as abusive and violent by JKR in the text for hurting Ron. Just as Lily is not painted in a bad light for being a major hypocrite who hooks up with her former best friend's bully after claiming they're both just as bad as each other. But James was a Gryffindor who didn't use Dark magic and he quickly changed through the power of Lily's Pure Loving Presence.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough, I don’t mind Ginny/ Luna. I think they set each other off nicely - Ginny is practical and Luna’s dreamy.

Ah, that makes sense. Yes, it’s the same issue I have with the Golden Trio: they do things because they are Inherently Good, and all the things they do are condoned by the author.

I wonder if Lily was well-liked among her classmates at Hogwarts?

It’s really a sign of poor writing, isn’t it, when you have two such different characters (Hermione and Lily) and yet they express their anger in exactly the same way?

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I don't mind Ginny/Luna either, but I think I like the idea of them more than what we've seen in canon. But, as always, since it's Harry's POV we're not going to see the intricacies of other friendships outside of the Golden Trio. Though I do think it sweet that Ginny gave her daughter Luna's name. I like it a tad more than James Sirius and Albus Severus. :p

I think Lily was well-liked among her peers. I'm too unmotivated to get the book to refer to it correctly, but doesn't Lily mention having friends separate from Snape when she says something along the lines of "my friends don't know why I keep hanging around you" to him? Plus, this is my own bias talking, but I get the sense that JKR wanted James/Lily to be a popular all-around beloved couple, so I don't doubt that Lily had an overall healthy social life at Hogwarts.

Speaking of the Lily and Hermione comparisons - this is purely hypothetical, but I wonder how Hermione would've reacted if Harry or Ron were bullied and called her a "mudblood" while she stood there bickering with their tormentor? I think Hermione would've been rightfully hurt, furious, and probably wouldn't have spoken to Harry or Ron for a while. But I can't imagine her leaving either of her friends behind like Lily did with Snape. I know this is pure fanon since we don't have a similar situation like this in canon, but it's an interesting scenario to think about.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think Hermione would have come to her senses and tried to rescue Harry or Ron (or at least fetched a teacher, if she couldn’t get them down). I think she would have got quite upset, actually, and ahouted imprecations at their tormentors — and *then*, after the incident was over, she would have given Harry/Ron the cold shoulder.

Hermione is an interesting character. I get the feeling she was bullied, or at least friendless, in primary school, unlike Lily (witness her strong reaction to Ron’s teasing in PS). She has a strong sense of justice and a saviour complex when it comes to people (e.g. house elves) she perceives as downtrodden. And I believe Ron or Harry would fit the role of ‘downtrodden’ if they were being forced to strip by Crabbe and Goyle. Lily seems not to have experienced loneliness on the scale
that Hermione did in PS. She doesn’t share Hermione’s saviour complex, and therefore has little interest in maintaining a friendship with Severus during SWM. She’s more interested in sticking it to James (and impressing him, probably, with how “tough” she can be).

Having said that, the dynamic (per Jo’s logic) would be different in this instance because Crabbe and Goyle could hardly be expected to be anything other than brain-dead thugs. /s Any JKR character wouldn’t hesitate to hex them,because they’d “deserve it just for existing”.

If we substitute Cho for Lily, a couple of Claws/Puffs (perhaps Roger Davies or Zach Smith?) for the Marauders, and Harry for Snape, it might be a closer parallel. And I doubt Cho would stand there arguing with the bullies, either.

I also think the Trio’s dynamic is slightly different because we see them in five books. We don’t get as much of a sense of Snape and Lily’s friendship by SWM. I think we’re meant to read Lily’s refusal to forgive Snape as a combination of their friendship drifting apart, Snape’s DE sympathies and the influence of Lily’s friends. The Mudblood thing seems to be just an excuse.

At the same time, like Lily, Hermione is capable of the silent treatment with Harry and Ron, and swift relatiation when she becomes emotional (e.g. the birds).

Can’t remember where I read this, but someone wrote that Hermione‘s always right, except when she’s emotional, and then she’s always wrong.

Sorry for the edits midway through - my phone froze.