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

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

Yes. Made possible by; no. Better. No. Yes.

The capacity for doing so makes you a better person, but not necessarily great or even good (that probably depends more on your morals and willingness to sacrifice vs. selfishness), and *actually* doing so depends on the circumstances of your life. I happen think that's true *and* also reflected in the stories, but as far as the books go, it began as a children's story and 'love saves' has a nice hook when you're trying to sell it to publishers. /cynic

I think the answer lies in your assessment of the Malfoys and Albus. 'Love saved them [from Azkaban], although it didn’t fully redeem them as moral figures in the story.' So basically what I said above. (Which buggers some of the overarching aspects of 'love as a theme' in the books. It basically seems to be a 'nice to have' and a rallying cry.) And: 'Dumbledore screws up greatly for love, but it’s all cool because he’s innately wonderful' would mean what matters in the end is what you *are/do*, and *not* that (or who) you loved, because love in that case was clearly bad. Albus improves *despite* it.

With Voldemort, I thought the key as he's described was to view him as a psychopath (and therefore apparently 'evil'), and effectively untreatable, and that part and parcel of his diagnosis is he is incapable of love. (Also: coercive union and magic!, obvs. (I liked that.)) So not that he is 'evil' *because* he is incapable of that emotion, but he is 'evil' and *thus* incapable, in addition to everything else, if the distinction makes sense? (But maybe that's a chicken / egg thing...) Still, it seems like a lack of empathy and conscience are bigger keys to making him 'evil' than an absence of love.

Harry I've had huge problems with, as he's a fairly selfish, self-absorbed asshat for much of the series (yes, mileage varies, and it's also not that I mind that characterisation per se). I'm not even convinced I felt his final sacrifice to be motivated by *love*. It was a huge thing, I'm not trying to take away from that, but on the other hand, is it as huge when you don't believe you'll survive anyway to seek to make your death more meaningful / useful? (Serious question: does that lessen or increase or not change the significance of the act? It's a bit like the argument that there can be no altruism...)

I also never felt Harry had such a great ability to love. His treatment of Hermione can be... ouch, let's go with 'poor', his behaviour towards his other friends, Cho... He's not a generous person (by which I don't just mean financially). I don't see a wealth of love in his actions. (Again, not a condemnation of the character. On the contrary, I think it makes perfect sense given how he was raised.)

Isn't the 'amazing ability to love' just more of Dumbledore's crap? Just like: 'Severus, we shall sacrifice your soul, because it's of no import, but not Draco's, no no.' I always felt Albus says things to get *the response* he wants from people, not necessarily because he believes those things. (And even if he did, that doesn't make them true.)

I also don't think Dumbledore comes off as 'innately wonderful' in the books. Quite the opposite, because we're not given much of a chance to see Albus refute some of the things he said to Severus, he comes across as pretty terrible when you look behind the curtain. (Again, I'd bet the truth lies somewhere in between.) It's just that most people don't look behind that curtain. He's 'seen as the epitome of good' because he isn't truly *seen*.

I would, however, agree that's how a lot of characters (and readers) choose to see him. I think that was well presented, that some in 'verse people will be all about the Albus love. I find it a lot odder that many *readers* are. (But that effect helps explain how people can love the Marauders, which I'll never get...)

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

What's worse, as far as the issue of Albus' 'love' goes, for my money it's a question of having your cake and eating it, too. (I'd have *much* rather his being gay was canon. A single line would have done it.) In the HP books, the motive for the friendship with Grindelwald is presented more as a meeting of (bigoted) minds / thirst for power / desire for revenge against the muggles who destroyed his family than his love for Grindelwald. *That* comes from interviews/ Pottermore / and now (apparently) the latest series of movies.

I have to disagree about Snape. Too many things to go into, but I disagree that he didn't redeem himself. I guess it's a question of 'in whose eyes'? Do the characters have to see it that way for that to be the case? (And did they not? Harry does name a kid after him.) I certainly don't think you have to be a nice person to be heroic. (But then again, I think guilt plays a significant role in Snape's motives, not simply 'love'. That was reductive and simplistic and smacks of Harry's interpretation. And he'd be motivated to see it that way.)

'[It’s] also connected to who you are innately as a person.' Disagree. It's *not* connected to it except for the psychopath (by definition) being *incapable* of it. Basically *all* the characters you listed (including the Malfoys and Bellatrix) are *capable* of love. That obviously didn't make them good. That capability was only a redeeming characteristic, but I wouldn't capitalise the 'redeeming' in that sentence. And the reason for that is in opposition to your sense that their 'actions and choices' were immaterial, because those are exactly the reasons Snape is still a sarcastic and abusive arse, the Malfoy are bigoted hate-crime offenders [I don't have a good word for that, soz], and Bella is a sadistic maniac. Because they are.

The Malfoys also aren't forgiven for their actions because of their capacity to love. That forgiveness happens because Narcissa's love for her son makes her behave in a way that earns her that forgiveness. (Her motivations for helping Harry can be seen as selfish, but because it amounts to 'love' somehow that label doesn't quite stick.) But she doesn't do the right thing out of conviction, and she isn't really getting an in 'verse pass because she loves.

Not touching the Saint Lily love with a ten metre pole...

And keep in mind, Dumbles has *decades* to move past the Grindelwald affair. He's had a lot of time to try to atone and earn everyone's good (if uniformed) opinion. Had Snape lived, perhaps he'd have wrapped the universe around his finger, too. (LOL)

Thanks for posting. This was fun. 😊

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The capacity for doing so makes you a better person, but not necessarily great or even good (that probably depends more on your morals and willingness to sacrifice vs. selfishness), and *actually* doing so depends on the circumstances of your life.

I agree and I wouldn't have a problem with this message if it was better encompassed in the books. However, I think love is connected with one's morality in the HP series, especially because characters are fixed to be what they're meant to be.

I often have trouble telling the difference between the text itself and what Rowling wanted us to interpret from the text. For example: Dumbledore, in the text, is a troubled individual who teamed up with Grindelwald not only because he was drawn to him, but also because he harbored some form of vengeful anger toward Muggles and bitterness over his family. It led to Ariana's death and a great deal of guilt on Dumbledore's part. He spent his life fixing his mistakes and became a better, but still very flawed, person after he cut ties with Grindelwald and defeated him.

However, I can't tell if JKR wants her readers to interpret Dumbledore as an innocent man led astray by a form of temptation (Grindelwald) rather than his own flaws as a person. It's okay Dumbledore teamed up with a racist man - he was fooled by love! It's okay Dumbledore goes on to become a ruthless manipulator in his life - he is doing it for the greater good! I think Dumbledore is seen as the epitome of good because JKR wants him to be seen that way and expects us to embrace Dumbledore as a quintessential wise and righteous mentor figure. Any grey morality he has as a character is hand waved away.

It's why Dumbledore is a strange case for me. He has the potential to be a compelling character if I got the sense that JKR meant for him to be fallible and not a figure of perfect goodness. But I don't think she had the guts to go there all the way with Dumbledore.

As for Voldemort, I think it's telling how JKR wanted the contrast between heroic Harry and his amazing ability to love vs Voldemort's incapability to love at all. Making Tom Riddle the stereotypical image of a psychopath is a part of it, but I think it renders both their characters down to nature rather than nurture. Of course Harry is going to turn out heroic - he can love! Of course Voldemort is the epitome of evil - he's a psychopath incapable of love! It's not their choices or actions as characters, but their inherent nature that matters more so. But I am very biased because I cannot stand it when a hero is presented as being inherently good no matter what, as well as a villain being inherently evil no matter what they choose either.

As for Harry, I never bought his amazing ability to love either, and that would be okay if he was presented as being a normal teenage boy instead of a Christ figure in DH. I'm not a religious person, but Jesus Christ is associated with compassion, mercy, and love for everyone, including those who do not "deserve" it. If Harry is meant to be Christ-like, then he should've been portrayed as more compassionate than average - or maturing to that point as a hero. His sacrifice can be seen that way, but his character overall doesn't strike me as showing great love to others. As you said, this makes sense for him. But again, it's another example for me in the difference between what the text shows versus what Rowling wants us to interpret from the text. Harry, to me, is a brave, caring, self-absorbed, and ordinary boy. But Rowling wants us to see someone who is extraordinary and "amazing" in his ability to love and sacrifice, and makes it clear that is what separates him from other characters as a hero.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

(I'd have *much* rather his being gay was canon. A single line would have done it.) In the HP books, the motive for the friendship with Grindelwald is presented more as a meeting of (bigoted) minds / thirst for power / desire for revenge against the muggles who destroyed his family than his love for Grindelwald. *That* comes from interviews/ Pottermore / and now (apparently) the latest series of movies.

I completely agree with you. I do find it bothersome how the one example of same-sex attraction in the books revolves around a "wrongful" love. Dumbledore seemingly becomes celibate after his dangerous connection with Grindelwald. On the other hand, the copious amount of heterosexual romances in the books is thrown in your face in both serious and silly ways. (I don't think I'll ever stop poking fun at the ridiculousness of Harry's chest monster, to be honest.)

I have to disagree about Snape. Too many things to go into, but I disagree that he didn't redeem himself. I guess it's a question of 'in whose eyes'? Do the characters have to see it that way for that to be the case? (And did they not? Harry does name a kid after him.) I certainly don't think you have to be a nice person to be heroic. (But then again, I think guilt plays a significant role in Snape's motives, not simply 'love'. That was reductive and simplistic and smacks of Harry's interpretation. And he'd be motivated to see it that way.)

I think Snape was forgiven, but not redeemed. Or rather, if he was redeemed, I don't think JKR did a great job with it. Snape was one of my favorite characters from the books (and still is, in a way) but I believe he was diminished by having his sole motivation be all about Lily. I think JKR wants us to believe everything he's done was for Lily's sake only. If it were not for her safety being threatened, he would still be a Death Eater. If Snape was redeemed, it was not because of his own qualities and actions as a person - it's because of Lily. I don't find that to be a well-written redemption arc, but unfortunately, I think it's entirely what JKR intended. If it weren't for his undying love for a dead woman, Snape would have zero redeeming qualities of his own. Having everything come down to loving a pure Gryffindor to make Snape "better" leaves me annoyed and disappointed rather than moved or impressed.

And I suppose it affects my opinion of love overall being a major theme in the books. As you've said, I don't think the capacity for love makes a person morally good. But, loving someone is treated as a big deal in JKR's world. It may not make a character a good person, but love is worthy of praise in itself. Love is treated as the most important thing.

To sum it up: I would've found it more meaningful of a message if it were one's choices - regardless if a person loves someone or not - to be important. Having so much hinge upon love or the ability to love makes it simplistic, in my opinion. I think JKR gave lip service to "choices" being significant in her books, but her characters are fated to be the way they intrinsically are from beginning to end. Harry is meant to be the self-sacrificial loving hero. Dumbledore is meant to be the epitome of good regardless of his love for Grindelwald. Snape is meant to be a horrible person with an ounce of goodness because of his love for Lily. The Malfoys are meant to be selfish cowards with an ounce of goodness because of their love for one another.

Ahh, I'm all over the place in my thoughts, I apologize. I'm not in the best head space right now, but I appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the time to write an eloquent and interesting response!

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

(But that effect helps explain how people can love the Marauders, which I'll never get...)

...Because it's okay to like the Gryffindor bad boys and bullies but not the Slytherin bad boys and bullies? ;)

I don't think the fandom has a lot of love for Peter, but James, Sirius, and Remus are adored because - just as with Dumbledore - I think Rowling wanted us to like them despite their faults. She made their flaws easily excusable. It also helps that Harry likes them too, making their negative attributes even more likely to be ignored in favor of their positive traits.

The funny thing is, I do like Remus and Sirius as characters, but I don't see them as squeaky clean good guys. It makes them more interesting that they aren't morally pure and have their downfalls as characters.

The Daily Snitch: Friday February 8, 2019

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User frnklymrshnkly referenced to your post from The Daily Snitch: Friday February 8, 2019 (https://daily-snitch.livejournal.com/1009445.html) saying: [...] • posted an essay, Love in HP [...]

[sunnyskywalker]

I wonder whether Harry being more or less capable of empathy and friendship despite his upbringing means he started with a higher-than-average capacity for love? Rather than him actually showing it by the time he starts Hogwarts, I mean. It's only because he started off with the higher capacity that he has any left after it's badly damaged.

Er, not that that's what Dumbledore meant, probably, but it's about the only way I can see it being true.

I think overall, the books are very muddled about love and what it means. They try for "love is great and redemptive," but... well, you point out Bella's love for Voldemort. Maybe if she'd loved him less, she'd have done less harm. Or maybe her status-obsessed pureblood family deprived of real love, pushed her into a loveless marriage, and so she was vulnerable to the first charismatic person who gave her an illusion of love--maybe if she'd had real love earlier, she'd have turned out better. But that leads you to the question of whether what she felt for Voldemort was "really" love, and what is love exactly anyway... Ugh, it's a huge topic.

As for Snape, again, it kind of depends on how you frame it. Love made him take actions which ultimately saved a lot of lives. On the other hand, in order to do that, he spent years doing things like threatening kids with the possibility that he would make them poison their own pets as a class demonstration, and probably scared a lot of kids off potions as a subject who might otherwise have contributed to the field. How do you weigh the costs and benefits? It's not really a mathematically precise situation. And if he'd run off to New Zealand and worked in a researcher with some nice people who showed him professional respect, he probably would have become a nicer person who invented healing potions that saved lots of lives or something like that. How do you weigh that (possible) outcome against the people who would have died if he hadn't stayed in Britain?

I don't know that JKR really had a clear message here, unless it's that people are messy and complicated and you sometimes you never know whether you've made the right choice. Not that the epilogue supports that interpretation...

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The answer I typically see from others on what separates Harry from Tom Riddle (and Snape) is Harry found love and friendship at Hogwarts and it helped with his ability to care for others. His guardians at home were horrible, but Harry had genuine friends and a sense of belonging in the Wizarding world. Harry experienced abuse at home and dangerous encounters at school, but he had his friends, surrogate family, and mentor figures to back him up and provide support.

I still think JKR did not portray the abuse by the Dusleys in a serious manner in the earlier books, and the tone of the earlier books contrasted with the later ones. I also think Harry should've been far more damaged than he was with all the abuse and harrowing near-death experiences he went through. Nonetheless, I can concede on the argument that Harry had people who loved and cared for him and this influenced his ability to love others as well. (Although, I still also believe it's too convenient to have a hero who is innately extraordinary in his ability to love rather than showing it through his choices as a character.)

As for Bellatrix, I'm sure the answer can go either way. She loved Voldemort, but Voldemort is the wrong type of person to love; therefore, any love she has for him will be toxic and dangerous. On the other hand, you can argue Bellatrix had more of a cult-like devotion and loyalty to Voldemort rather than true love.

As for Snape, I agree with you it depends on how you frame it. I've seen enough arguments on both ends of the spectrum - pro redemption and anti redemption - on whether Snape truly changed for the better. As I've said, I go back and forth, but I suppose my ultimate stance is this: Snape was forgiven but not redeemed, and if he was redeemed by love, I don't think it was done well.

I think Snape's love for Lily changed him for the better in only one way: it made him defect from Voldemort. That's it. Otherwise, I think his love for Lily kept him stuck in the past - incapable of changing, healing, or moving on with his life. Not only did he remain bitter and cruel, but he was a Dead Man Walking the moment Lily died too. This is why the whole "Snape loves Lily" plot makes him a pitiful and tragic figure in my eyes; still heroic and brave, but stagnant and demolished too.

Before DH, I thought Snape was a survivor; a man who will follow orders and fight for the light, but with full intentions of watching out for himself to the bitter end. Well, DH made me change my mind. I don't think Snape was a survivor. I think his devotion to Lily was all that kept him going and all that he cared about. That's not an example of redemptive love at all to me, but opinions will vary (as they always do when it comes to Snape, ha).

Edit: One last thought - I also think Snape wasn't redeemed by his love for Lily because his love for Lily says less good things about him and more good things about her.

It's another example of how magnificent Lily is. Her existence was such a blessing that she managed to instill a degree of goodness in a terrible cruel bastard of a man. No one was capable of influencing Snape for the better without manipulation or persuasion - no one other than Lily. Even in death, she's a Savior figure to both the hero (Harry) and the guilt-ridden sinner (Snape).

As you can tell, I have a lot of biased negative views on how Snape's possible redemption was handled, and this influences my perception of it. Maybe JKR really was going for a romantic and moving story with Snape/Lily and how he was redeemed because he had a faithful and utmost true love for her, but eh.... It's clearly not for me.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

And having thrown that out there, Imma now gonna try and answer my own question... Sorry it wasn't meant to be bait.

So... shower thoughts! (It was a long shower...) I think I have a few ideas.

'Because it's okay to like the Gryffindor bad boys and bullies but not the Slytherin bad boys and bullies? ;)

My knee jerk reaction is 'YES!', by that kind of thinking is just going to make me miserable, so it's time to but a bit of brain grease into it...

First:
'The funny thing is, I do like Remus and Sirius as characters, but I don't see them as squeaky clean good guys. It makes them more interesting that they aren't morally pure and have their downfalls as characters.'

I'd cosign that in a heartbeat. I'll make the added distinction that I like Sirius as a *character*, but not as an *individual*. He's good read, but not my idea of good fun, if that makes sense? I wouldn't want to know him, have him in my life, or in the lives of those near and dear (even if some of them *are* fictional characters... 😉), which is *prefect* in a book character, really. So so far, so good.

And you can like people despite their faults. You *should*, even. None of us are perfect, if we weren't able to see past faults, we'd all be alone.

I think part of the issue is most people HP fans *I know* weren't huge on DH. The earlier books and movies were read and watched more often, and that has a way of skewing how we view the story and the characters. And another substantial part is how we come to know them.

When we're first introduced to Remus, he saves Harry and seems an intelligent and nice guy. He's kind to Neville. (I side-eyed his making Severus the butt of more jokes as unprofessional, but he's new to the job and it built up a kid who desperately needed it.) We don't find out he's a weak man, a reckless one and a coward until much later. By that point, he's grown on us, and because Harry (and the books) don't focus much on his negative traits, we tend not to either.

Severus by contrast is a mean old unreasonable arse from the outset, and we focus on those traits a hell of a lot. He provokes and embarrasses Harry in front of his classmates (and many readers will remember how that feels only too well), which makes Harry's push back apparently cool / wish fulfillment. (Naturally, I side-eyed that as well... 😉)

But I think those first impressions go a long way to defining how some people continue to see them.

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

You're right, Harry has people who stick to him even when he's an arse. In addition to mentors and a support network, he has people who don't desert the friendship. No matter who's to blame for the problems, Ron and Hermione ultimately stick by him when the going gets tough. He also learns his family loved him enough to die for him. Riddle on the other hand comes to learn his father *didn't* want him *at all*. I imagine Snape had similar experiences. We don't really see enough of Riddle's school life to say much about his friendships, but we know the devastating effect Lily's rejection had on Severus.

So where Harry is and was valued, Snape, at the least, wasn't.

But that's only the beginning.

I'd say there are some other key differences (in addition to Riddle's psychopathy). For one thing, before ever reaching Hogwarts, Harry learns he's a child of means. Riddle and Snape aren't. There's less security there, more need to make do and make opportunities, more pressure to take what's available. They're also both more ambitious than Harry. Compare that to Harry. When his only expressed desire for the future comes under threat (his O.W.L. wasn't good enough to take N.E.W.T. Potions, and he needed five N.E.W.T.s to become an auror), instead of taking CMC and *working* for it, he sits around feeling sorry for himself instead. (Seriously? *Great* choice, Harry.)

Riddle and Snape can't afford such indulgences. When Riddle hears the school might close and he'd have to go back to the orphanage, he *scrambles*. (Admittedly he's a murderous bastard, but that isn't the point.)

Harry is also a celebrity from day one. Not that he necessarily wants to be, but he doesn't have to work to achieve the things the other two want. Fame and Fortune? He *has* them. Subsequently, he also has an opportunity to realise that fame isn't everything it's cracked up to be. If anything, perhaps it serves to make his ambitions more modest?


I agree JKR scaled up the age range of the material, and I loved it, but that also means certain things can't be graded on the same scale. We have to go back and look at them through a different lens to analyse them.

It is what it is, but I think it made for a nice experiment.

'I still also believe it's too convenient to have a hero who is innately extraordinary in his ability to love rather than showing it through his choices as a character.'

I don't think that's ever shown that he *is* innately extraordinary (either passively or actively). He's *screwed*, and he makes the best of a bad situation, and happens to survive against the odds, largely because he chose to make the best of it for everyone. Not trying to be a muppet here, but can you point me to where he's canonically 'extraordinary' other than in Albus' untrustworthy blah blah? (I trust Albus about as far as I can throw him.)

'I also think Harry should've been far more damaged than he was with all the abuse and harrowing near-death experiences he went through.'

Yes and no. I'd have expected him not to give Snape lip in the first class because of that, but I've also seen enough people to survive crap take further crap situations in their stride. They don't get thrown as easily.

And back to you... 😉

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. I do find it bothersome how the one example of same-sex attraction in the books revolves around a "wrongful" love.'

Yes! This! ❤️ While I'm a proponent of: there is no equality until *everyone* can also be treated equally *poorly* (life!); you are *so* right: when it's *the only example*, you really have to say 'ouch' that she went there.

(I do love the chest monster. Heh.)

Okay, I think I understand your distinction as far as Snape goes. It cheapened his sacrifices for you, so you don't see them as positively as you otherwise would have done given a different motive. Correct? (If so, question: aren't the behaviour and his actions more important than his motives in light of the magnitude of that sacrifice? Because in Harry's case you objected to his actions not being more important... Why wouldn't that also be true for Snape?)

I'm not a fan of trying to argue what JKR intended or not, because, who knows, interviews are also about product pitching and people pleasing, and even if she appeared before me tomorrow and swore up and down that was the point of the scene, I probably wouldn't necessarily believe it. The books were long enough and years in the making. She had editors but also enough power towards the end there that anything that *had* to be in there probably was. Anyway, there are enough 'cake having and eating it too' things that convince me that's the case (Albus is gay, Hermione's parents; way to not take a stand Jo...).

I'd argue Snape and Albus are both presented as good because they work tirelessly to make up for the bad choices of their youths. It can also be argued that both choices were in part due to their having been in love, but I don't feel canon makes that out to be the sole reason for either of them. Albus has the advantage of the average person not being aware of his failings. Severus does not. And Albus has far more time to atone and make up for his mistakes than Severus does. Albus is also more of a people person. Makes a huge difference in how he's perceived.

'I suppose it affects my opinion of love overall being a major theme in the books.'

So, do me a favour and let's take Snape out of the equation for a bit.

If you *ignore* Snape when it comes to examples of love in the story (just roll with it), wouldn't your own examples show that love doesn't serve the purpose in the story you worry it does?

Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

And having thrown that out there, Imma now gonna try and answer my own question... Sorry it wasn't meant to be bait.

No need to apologize. Talking about how the books (and the fandom) differ in their portrayal of Gryffindors and Slytherins, as well as the Marauders and Snape, are some of my favorite things to discuss or read about pertaining to HP.

I'll make the added distinction that I like Sirius as a *character*, but not as an *individual*.

Same here. I find Sirius interesting, but I'm not sure I would like him in real life. To me, there's a clear difference between liking a fictional character and liking a real person. There are many fictional characters whom I would run in the opposite direction from if they were real. But since they're not real, I don't feel the need to judge them as potential friend or foe material. If they're entertaining, fascinating, or likable in the context of the story they inhabit, that's good enough for me.

And you can like people despite their faults. You *should*, even. None of us are perfect, if we weren't able to see past faults, we'd all be alone.

Well said. No one is perfect, nor should anyone be perfect. The world would be boring. :p And in fiction, characters that are written as flawless either bore me or irritate me. A character's flaws can make them interesting - or more interesting - just as their strengths do.

I think part of the issue is most people HP fans *I know* weren't huge on DH. The earlier books and movies were read and watched more often, and that has a way of skewing how we view the story and the characters. And another substantial part is how we come to know them.

You're correct about first impressions. They stick with you, and having the books be through Harry's eyes means it sticks with him too and it can be difficult to look past Harry's filter (I think JKR struggles with it as well since her views and Harry's often coincide, but that's just a vibe I get).

JKR loves Gryffindor - there's no doubt about that. Her love for Gryffindor wouldn't allow her to make her Gryffindor characters too messy or controversial in a significant way, unlike the Slytherins. (Peter is the exception, not the rule.)

And so, you have Remus who is passive-aggressive, weak-willed, desperate to be liked, cowardly, and reckless. But! It doesn't really matter because we often see him at his best, when he's kind, nurturing, sympathetic, humorous, and friendly with his students. Harry likes him, so we ought to like him too.

Same thing with Sirius. He's hot-headed, brash, immature, irresponsible, and remorseless about nearly injuring or killing a student (and risking his friend Remus in the process too). But! It doesn't really matter because we often see him at his best, when he's caring, protective, courageous, mischievous, and loyal to Harry (or James). Harry loves him, so we ought to love him too.

And Snape, well, he's meant to be an antagonist. We see him at his worst through Harry's eyes the majority of the time. He's mean, spiteful, cruel, and awful to Harry, Neville, and Hermione. He's not meant to be likable, and his flaws are not easily excused - they're up front and center to the point of being unapologetic. We only get to glimpse the better side of Snape once he's revealed to be loyal to Dumbledore all along.

Part 2

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

What intrigued me about Snape was his ability to be such a paradoxical mess. He's a bully and a hero. He's Harry's tormentor and his protector. He's mean and brave. He's hateful and faithful. He's a perpetrator of cruelty and a victim of cruelty. He exudes a composed surface while being intensely emotional. He's worked for the dark and the light. He's Neville's boggart, but is the same man who sends Neville to Hagrid so he won't be tortured. He's full of contradictions, and it's what caught my interest. In a weird way, his flaws being obvious made me like him more. The ambiguity and moral conflict surrounding his character made him one of the most challenging and captivating characters in the series.

Which is why I am so, so bitter over how JKR simplified his motivations and entire existence down to Lily. Snape had the potential for a great and complex redemption, but making it all about his love for Lily? I've tried my hardest in the past to find something to like about Lily being Snape's sole path to redemption and... I can't. Maybe I'll change my mind one day and see it from a different point of view.

Thank you for your comments again and for the discussion!

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm not as cynical as I should be, but I do think JKR had her heart in the right place when she confirmed Dumbledore as gay. But it would've taken real guts to actually show it in the books and not in the form of a disastrous entanglement. Having a multitude of heterosexual romances but only one celibate gay character who was tempted by an ultimate bad boy until he resisted and fought him is... not a great example of same-sex romance. There was no equality in straight and gay representation in the books.

Okay, I think I understand your distinction as far as Snape goes. It cheapened his sacrifices for you, so you don't see them as positively as you otherwise would have done given a different motive. Correct? (If so, question: aren't the behaviour and his actions more important than his motives in light of the magnitude of that sacrifice? Because in Harry's case you objected to his actions not being more important... Why wouldn't that also be true for Snape?)

Yes, you're correct. The reveal of his love for Lily being his sole motivation to attempt to do good did not appeal to me at all. I still find his actions to be courageous and significant to the story - I have no trouble with that. I suppose my trouble lies with JKR again and how she insists everything Snape did was for Lily's sake and only for her. She makes Lily such a big part of Snape's psyche as a character that it's hard not to look at his actions without seeing the motives (or one motive in this case) behind it.

I do have a (potentially?) bad tendency to wonder what the author intended after reading a book. I can have my own interpretations and analysis, but I still consider what the creator meant to convey from their end too. This is why I try to get into JKR's mindset, for better or for worse. :P

I'd argue Snape and Albus are both presented as good because they work tirelessly to make up for the bad choices of their youths. It can also be argued that both choices were in part due to their having been in love, but I don't feel canon makes that out to be the sole reason for either of them. Albus has the advantage of the average person not being aware of his failings. Severus does not. And Albus has far more time to atone and make up for his mistakes than Severus does. Albus is also more of a people person. Makes a huge difference in how he's perceived.

I agree Dumbledore had far more advantages than Snape did at his disposal. I also agree Dumbledore and Snape worked hard to atone for their sins. But... I do think JKR meant Snape's love for Lily to be a sole reason for his change from loyal Death Eater to loyal agent for Dumbledore. Snape isn't shown to question the DEs and Voldemort before Lily is threatened. He was willing to let Lily's infant son die in exchange for Lily's safety. Snape leaves Voldemort, starts working for Dumbledore, and strives to be better only after Lily is killed; he would have never cared otherwise - I think this is what JKR portrayed in canon, as much as it pains me to see it. And, as I've said above, JKR makes Snape's love for Lily such a big part of his character that it's difficult to disentangle his devotion to her from his actions. It does greatly color my perception of him, and I say that as someone who liked Snape in books 1-6.

If you *ignore* Snape when it comes to examples of love in the story (just roll with it), wouldn't your own examples show that love doesn't serve the purpose in the story you worry it does?

Hmm, I would still be disappointed with how static the characters seem. However, I might not perceive love to be so closely linked with morality in the books. It would be another "feel good" message to have in a children's tale rather than something trying to send a complicated message to make the story deeper than it is.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Yes, Harry, despite his numerous hardships, has great advantages too. The love of his friends and mentor figures, his wealth, his fame, the knowledge that his parents were brave people who loved him, etc. He has a lot of bad luck, but a lot of good luck to counteract it.

Snape and Riddle did not have as many advantages to fall back on in life. There was no loving surrogate family to embrace them in place of their troubled family life. Harry had the Dursleys, but he had Ron, Hermione, the Weasley family, Dumbledore, Sirius, and many more people who supported and cherished him to the end.

I agree Harry doesn't show much ambition in work and academics. I think his drive and determination comes through when he's solving the latest mystery or undertaking a risky adventure. Harry is courageous in the face of life-threatening danger, but he's lazy when it comes to schoolwork and everyday tasks. :p In the daily drudges of life, his ambitions do seem more modest in comparison.

As for Harry being innately extraordinary, I do think it's largely through Dumbledore's words in HBP of Harry having never been tempted by the Dark Arts, being remarkable enough to face Voldemort, being protected by his amazing ability to love, etc etc.

Not trying to be a muppet here, but can you point me to where he's canonically 'extraordinary' other than in Albus' untrustworthy blah blah? (I trust Albus about as far as I can throw him.)

But that's the thing - in canon, would I say Harry shows how extraordinary he is on a regular basis? No. Other than being exceptional at Quidditch and having heaps of luck to escape dangerous situations over and over, I don't think Harry is super extraordinary. Yet, I think JKR meant for readers to see him as extraordinary regardless because of his status as the hero who loves in opposition with Voldemort the villain who can't love. That in itself is depicted as "extraordinary".

And maybe "damaged" was the wrong word for me to use. "Changed" would've been better. I think Harry should've changed as a person with all the things he did and went through. One example which immediately comes to mind is the aftermath of Harry's dash to the Ministry in OOTP. I don't get the sense from the books that Harry learned much from his recklessness. He blamed Sirius' death on Snape, disbanded the DA, and spent more time worrying about Quidditch and chest monsters in HBP than considering the consequences of his actions.

Another example is when he nearly kills Draco (and nearly killing someone would shake up any average person). But Harry is more concerned about getting detention for the rest of the year than the fact that he almost sliced someone to death. Even if Harry wasn't damaged by all the horrors in his life, I wish he'd at least be deeply affected by them beyond 5 minutes.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think the only way Dumbledore's claim about Harry can be true is if an average person in Harry's situation would have ended up more like Tom, so Harry not doing so (and turning out average-ish to slightly troubled instead) is extraordinary. So, he doesn't act more extraordinarily loving than anyone else, but just making it to where he is was extraordinary.

Though if that's what Dumbledore meant, he's saying it in a way he ought to know will be misinterpreted. That's Dumbledore for you...

Not to mention, you're right that Harry had advantages Tom and Severus never had, including money, fame, friends who stick by him even when he's a jerk, and that first fifteen months of being loved before ending up with bad guardians. So it isn't really a fair comparison. It seems more like what's happening is that if you treat kids better and give them more security, they turn out better. So... maybe work on that and there will be fewer bullies and dark lords, right, wizarding world?

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

'I think his drive and determination comes through when he's solving the latest mystery or undertaking a risky adventure. Harry is courageous in the face of life-threatening danger, but he's lazy when it comes to schoolwork and everyday tasks. :p In the daily drudges of life, his ambitions do seem more modest in comparison.'

I think for me he doesn't come across so much as driven as obsessed, say with the way he follows Draco around sixth year. (He happens to be mostly correct on that one. Usually, not so much.) It's also like he's occasionally and very specifically dead certain he's right, and everyone with more experience and demonstrably more talent around him is somehow wrong and missing the point. And if not, they damn well need to prove it to him, because he's entitled to answers, and they need to run things by him first, I guess... (So, basically: delusional.)

I'd give Harry more props for his never having 'been tempted by the Dark Arts' had he showed much interest in *anything* (besides Quidditch, eventually girls, and his latest 'Harry knows best' crack theory (most of which are wrong)). But he just doesn't. He never sits his backside down to learn all he can to master the problem. (Even the DA was Hermione's idea.) When he's given unusual advantages, really stellar opportunities - private tutoring in Occlumency with Snape, for example, he squanders the chance and just... blows it. Or responds with this sense of entitlement that makes me stabby. (How dare Dumbledore not make time for private one on ones with him...)That's probably my biggest problem with his characterisation, he frequently behaves like a spoilt brat (more so than Draco even), and I can't reconcile that with his history.

I can't even give Harry full points for some of his courageous actions when he comes across as more oblivious to the ramifications than brave. (Ron gets the most points from me in those scenes, for mastering his fears like a boss. Even Hermione (who probably has both more fears and more situational awareness) seems to put pragmatism first there, and doesn't cut quite as good a figure there (in my eyes) as Ron does. And I cut Ron slack... almost never, so that's saying something.)

Here again, you keep coming back to what you think JKR meant. The problem is we can't really debate that. We can debate what's *there*, but anything else boils down to reading interviews and trying to decide which statements she meant and which were jokes and which weren't well considered answers, delivered on the fly like that...

Based on what's in the books and movies, Harry for me is sort of the Everyman who succeeds against wretched odds. (I thinking it's telling that he performs no spells in PS, for example, and I love that.) It's one of the reasons I *like* him as a character (I know it doesn't sound like it) even though I dislike so much about him. (Because those last two paragraphs of yours? YES! *\o/* Preach! Absolutely.)

But then I think part of what may be going on there is his inability to deal with his own guilt. In OotP and HBP, he's immature. In HBP, you can just watch him devolving. Guilt spiral? He doesn't grow until DH...

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think *my* problem there is I've reached a point where I wouldn't believe Albus if he told me the sky was blue or I needed oxygen and water to live. Which doesn't mean he doesn't occasionally tell the truth, and it's key for me to keep that in mind...

It's not just the first fifteen months of having love in Harry's life, although those have been proven to be developmentally crucial, it's also the later knowledge of having been loved. That can make a huge difference in a child's life.

I'd argue the same is true of our world, but I suspect that was the point. 😉

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

I'd tend to agree. I also accept that it would have made her chances of getting the books published a lot less likely had she done so from the outset, and I'll never blame someone for making that call. But by the time the later books came out, I feel like she had enough clout to push that through had it mattered to her. (On the other hand, I can also appreciate not squeezing in some awkward!, so who knows. Maybe it was for the best.)

What's weird for me is that we seem to see so much of and about the characters in much the same light, and then you get to the Snape/Lily thing and I have a very different read on it. Normally, I disagree with people on more points, or don't diverge as much on just the one.

So! If I sat myself down and tried to come up with a rebuttal to your read on that stuff, would that interest you? I wouldn't want to do it if you felt it was being issued as a challenge, and I'll say upfront that I can't debate what JKR meant, just what was there and how it could be taken. (On the upside, if it works for you, maybe it can help restore some of your fondness for Severus?)

RE: Part 1

[gingerbred.livejournal.com]

'I find Sirius interesting, but I'm not sure I would like him in real life. To me, there's a clear difference between liking a fictional character and liking a real person.'

Is there a word for that? It seems like there should be a word for that. There's a word for almost everything else...

We agree on so many of the characters' traits it's funny.

I *would* argue, however, that she *did* go there in terms of the messy traits for many of the Gryffindors, but fandom largely overlooked it. (Or just went: nope.) It's hard to be too judgy of Remus when he just died in the same book, say. (Seriously, he's someone who puts others at risk whenever he happens to feel like it, putting his wants and needs ahead of everyone else's *health and safety* in a truly heinous fashion... There can be no sympathy (from me) for his condition for someone who is willing to recklessly expose others to it, just for shits and giggles.) And by the time we learn some of the extent of Sirius' douchebaggery, he's already dead and gave his life trying to rescue Harry and the kids from their terminal stupidity. That makes it a little pointless and a lot difficult to really get mad at him. (Ditto James, and he wasn't even the asshat that Sirius was.)

The 'facts' are there, it's just that almost until the end, *Harry* focuses more on the: 'yeah, but he's a mean and greasy git' as if that mattered more.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

What's weird for me is that we seem to see so much of and about the characters in much the same light, and then you get to the Snape/Lily thing and I have a very different read on it. Normally, I disagree with people on more points, or don't diverge as much on just the one.

I tend to experience this with most fans of Snape. I like his character a lot and empathize with others who do so, but the one big disagreement I have is hating how Snape/Lily played out in canon. Unfortunately, the only other people I encounter who hate Snape/Lily tend to hate Snape as well, so it puts me in a weird position. I don't hate Snape at all, but I can't stand Snape/Lily with every fiber of my being lol.

If I sat myself down and tried to come up with a rebuttal to your read on that stuff, would that interest you? I wouldn't want to do it if you felt it was being issued as a challenge, and I'll say upfront that I can't debate what JKR meant, just what was there and how it could be taken. (On the upside, if it works for you, maybe it can help restore some of your fondness for Severus?)

If you have the time and wish to write a rebuttal, I would be interested in reading it! I am curious about how other Snape fans take his relationship with Lily and how it affected him as a character. I know my views are strongly negative, but I'm willing to hear any positives about it!

Re: Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Is there a word for that? It seems like there should be a word for that. There's a word for almost everything else...

If there isn't a word for it, there should be! It would help lessen a lot of fandom arguments and squabbles over characters if some people understood the difference between liking a real person and enjoying a fictional character in a story.

I *would* argue, however, that she *did* go there in terms of the messy traits for many of the Gryffindors, but fandom largely overlooked it. (Or just went: nope.)

I think it's both. The HP fandom does ignore or overlook the flaws and mistakes of Gryffindor characters. But I think JKR made it easy for fans to do so. She presents Gryffindor characters as flawed and capable of making mistakes yet pulls back on painting them with too dark of a shade, in my opinion. Any time a Gryffindor character is revealed to be less than virtuous, she doesn't have it be of any major consequence to Harry.

One example is when Harry finds out his father was an arrogant bully. He is appalled by James' behavior, and even manages to sympathize with Snape a little, but does it have an overarching effect on Harry or the story? I don't think it does. Harry questions Sirius and Remus about James, expresses his discomfort and...that's it. If the narrative is willing to disregard the wrongful actions of certain characters, it will have an effect on how the fandom perceives those characters too. The HP books are largely negative towards Slytherins and positive towards Gryffindors.

I agree with you on Remus and Sirius, although I am sympathetic to Remus despite his spinelessness. Nevertheless, it does annoy me how the fandom acts as if being a werewolf is no big deal when in canon, a fully changed werewolf can't differentiate between friend or threat. Remus endangering the kids was more than enough to justify getting him fired. And wanting to abandon Tonks and his child was not a good moment for him either. I am sympathetic to him, but the man does have his faults.

Weirdly enough, although I can find things to like about Sirius despite his douchebaggery and the callous stunt he pulled on Snape, I can't find anything to like about James. Yes, he stood against Voldemort to protect his wife and child and that is a courageous thing to do - yet, it's still not enough for me to be interested in his character. Harry's parents are more like symbols to me rather than people and I think a lot of it has to do with how Harry idealizes them. It makes sense for Harry to do so since he is an orphan starved for love, but I don't find James or Lily to be compelling in personality or characterization separate from Harry.

The 'facts' are there, it's just that almost until the end, *Harry* focuses more on the: 'yeah, but he's a mean and greasy git' as if that mattered more.

It's understandable for Harry to hate Snape before learning the truth, but I found it anticlimactic how Harry learned about Snape's loyalty from a Pensieve and forgave Snape off-screen years later. 7 books of hatred leave a stronger impression than a few pages of understanding and an epilogue including Albus Severus. I think there would've been a stronger lasting impact if Harry and Snape had a face-to-face confrontation either before Snape's death, or if Snape had survived and Harry had to make the hard choice of accepting the man while he was still alive. It's easy to forgive (and idolize) a dead man who can't talk back, but it's difficult to forgive someone who is living and still as flawed as ever. That's why I believe JKR took the easy way out on "solving" the conflict and misunderstanding between Harry and Snape.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I think for me he doesn't come across so much as driven as obsessed, say with the way he follows Draco around sixth year.

Maybe "driven" and "obsessed" can be the same thing, ha. :P But you're right that Harry has a tendency to jump to conclusions, stick to his judgment, and insist he has it all figured out. He was right about Draco to an extent, but it's almost a pattern of his in every book to suspect someone wrongfully. I think it's more of JKR's way of writing a plot twist. Having Harry make wrong assumptions is part of surprising the reader when the truth is revealed.

I'd give Harry more props for his never having 'been tempted by the Dark Arts' had he showed much interest in *anything* (besides Quidditch, eventually girls, and his latest 'Harry knows best' crack theory (most of which are wrong)).

Dumbledore praising Harry in HBP for never being tempted by the Dark Arts does fall flat when Harry hardly shows interest in the Dark Arts in the first place, amongst other things. He does cast Unforgivables in DH; however, it's treated as if it's something nonchalant rather than potentially bad for Harry to resort to such spells. He's not tempted so much as he's doing what he has to do and isn't affected by it in the long-run.

When he's given unusual advantages, really stellar opportunities - private tutoring in Occlumency with Snape, for example, he squanders the chance and just... blows it. Or responds with this sense of entitlement that makes me stabby. (How dare Dumbledore not make time for private one on ones with him...)That's probably my biggest problem with his characterisation, he frequently behaves like a spoilt brat (more so than Draco even), and I can't reconcile that with his history.

I agree with you here. I think one of Harry's greatest downfalls as a character - other than his recklessness - is his passiveness. Other than the occasional determination to figure things out and act on his hunches, Harry does seem dependent on the plot and other characters to get him moving. Or he's reluctant to learn new things if it's not easy for him to get by on luck and instinct alone. It could be him acting like a bratty teenager, or it could be JKR focusing more on getting the plot moving without developing her characters in the process beyond the roles she squeezes them into.

As for Harry's courage - I think he can be both oblivious and brave depending on the situation. If I were in his shoes during the graveyard scene in GOF, I'd be terrified out of my mind. Same thing with his showdown with the basilisk in COS. But Harry's bravery isn't unique to his character; he is in the house of Gryffindors after all. Ron, Hermione, and Neville have moments of facing their fears too.

Here again, you keep coming back to what you think JKR meant. The problem is we can't really debate that.

I try to separate my interpretations of the text from what JKR wants us to get from it, but I get the sense that JKR places her own biases and opinions into the text. It piques my curiosity to figure out what was going on in her head when she wrote the books and why certain things rub me the wrong way in how she writes. But you're right that the text should be taken on its own and anything beyond is speculation on what JKR meant.

It's one of the reasons I *like* him as a character (I know it doesn't sound like it) even though I dislike so much about him. (Because those last two paragraphs of yours? YES! *\o/* Preach! Absolutely.)

I have similar feelings about Harry; I like him, but he can annoy me sometimes too. I think he's one of the many characters with squandered potential who could've been handled better. I also like Hermione, Ron, Luna, Neville, Lupin, Sirius, Snape, and Dumbledore despite having criticisms on how they were depicted as well. Snape and Dumbledore, in my opinion, were the two characters JKR came the closest to writing with full-fledged complexity and depth.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think Harry's passivity is one of the squandered opportunities for his character, now that you mention it. He had ten years of the Dursleys proving to him over and over again that it's utterly pointless to ask questions, ask anyone for help, or do anything at all to change his situation. By the time he gets to Hogwarts, he's already suffering a bad case of learned helplessness. (That he manages to do anything is probably to his credit.)

That's a realistic problem for him to struggle with--but JKR never lets him really confront it, or even realize he has it. So he ends the series as he started. Worse, even, because by the end, he numbly marches to his death as ordered. Given the time pressure he was under, he probably couldn't have found an alternate solution--but he didn't question it later either. No, "Hi, Kings Cross Dumbledore, before you planned for my death, what other options did you consider?" Instead, he names his kid after the guy. It's awful. I don't expect characters to have solved all of their problems perfectly by the end, but this leaves us with no catharsis at all. There's no concrete evidence we can use as the basis for hope for the poor kid, even.

Maybe that would be okay if the series were structured as a tragedy or slife-of-life or basically anything but a bildungsroman with a side of Good vs. Evil. JKR either picked the wrong type of story for the character non-arc she wanted or wrote the wrong kind of character arc for the story type she picked. Or just messed up, which is probably most likely.

Re: Part 1

[sunnyskywalker]

Yes, he stood against Voldemort to protect his wife and child and that is a courageous thing to do

On the other hand, he's always been able to get out of situations before, and while we're not sure exactly how he defied Voldemort three times, one may have involved escaping a previous attack. So maybe deep down, he just didn't believe he was going to die.

I mean, he might have genuinely sacrificed himself, but we don't have quite enough evidence to prove that, and given what else we know about his character, I'd say there's room for doubt.

I remember waaaay back when I thought we were going to see evidence that James had really reformed by the time the series finished, and being able to imagine him being an ok guy. Now, I just can't. I tried, Jo! I really did! If you didn't want me to loathe him utterly, maybe you should have given him some redeeming characteristics in the text!