Deathly Hallows, chapter 2
Jul. 14th, 2008 08:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anehan posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockIn Memoriam
* The Dursleys are leaving tea cups outside Harry's bedroom door. What are they, house elves?
*Harry has never learned to heal wounds and thinks it's a serious flaw in his magical education. Maybe he ought to have, you know, studied during the six years at Hogwarts instead of letting Hermione do all his work for him. Sorry, Harry, but you have no one else than yourself to blame. Normal people, if they had a lunatic after their blood, would have actually devoted some time for making sure they weren't completely unprepared.
* Harry has never cleaned his trunk before. Gross. Our Harry isn't much for hygiene.
* Finding a fragment of the mirror Sirius had given him, Harry feels a sudden upsurge of bitter memories, stabs of regret and longing. He suffers, I tell you.
* Harry is going to take his photograh album and a stack of letters with him. Good lord, what does he think he's going to do with them. The boy is an idiot.
* And we come to the sickening obituary by Elphias Doge. One more person whom Dumbledore managed to hoodwink into believing he was a noble person.
* Dumbledore never revealed the remotest anti-Muggle tendency. Except when he bullied the Dursleys. But that doesn't count, because the Dursleys totally deserved it.
* Dumbledore became the most brilliant student Hogwarts had ever seen and constantly outshone his friends. Bet he liked that. It would have done good for him to be second-best at something. Instead, everything confirmed him in his belief that he was superior to others and that it was his duty to manipulate others for the greater good.
* According to Doge, Dumbledore never had Ministerial ambitions. True enough. He just wanted to take over the world.
* "Albus Dumbledore was never proud or vain". Ahahahahahaa!
* Dumbledore's losses "endowed him with great humanity and sympathy". Bitch, please. The man is clearly incapable of empathy.
* Doge was right in one thing, though: Dumbledore always worked for the greater good. Too bad his methods and definition of "greater good" were rather questionable.
* Harry had thought he knew Dumbledore quite well. What made him think that? The great openness Dumbledore displayed in his dealings with Harry, perhaps?
* Harry thinks that the idea of a teen-aged Dumbledore was odd, like trying to imagine a stupid Hermione. Much as I love Hermione, I have no problem in imagining her stupid. She isn't half so clever as she likes to think. For example, what good did it do to the DA to brand the traitor's face? It didn't prevent Marietta from squealing.
* The only personal question Harry had asked Dumbledore was the only one he suspected Dumbledore hadn't answered honestly. That's too naïve even for Harry.
* Unpleasant Skeeter may be, but I at least would rather read her book than any more of Doge's pennings. There might ever be a shred of truth in what she writes, if you manage to discount the more lurid details.
* Skeeter calls the Potter-Dumbledore relationship unhealthy, even sinister. Brava! At least someone finally got it right.
* Another chapter in which nothing happens comes to an end. I really need that alcohol to get through this.
Informed Attributes:
Dumbledore is noble. No, really.
Misdirected Answering:
Did you hear what Dumbledore got up to as a teenager? What do you mean, you're not interested?
Nut o' Fun:
Desiccated beetle eyes.
Final score: 3. Nothing happens in this chapter.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 04:52 am (UTC)*Harry has never learned to heal wounds and thinks it's a serious flaw in his magical education. Maybe he ought to have, you know, studied during the six years at Hogwarts instead of letting Hermione do all his work for him. Sorry, Harry, but you have no one else than yourself to blame. Normal people, if they had a lunatic after their blood, would have actually devoted some time for making sure they weren't completely unprepared.
It's so weird that they were never taught this in school. I mean, considering that Hogwarts seems to be it, education-wise, for wizards that aren't going into something more advanced in their careers. Being able to heal wounds seems like it would be a basic concept, especially since they have a whole class devoted to defending themselves from harmful magic. It's a hell of a lot more useful than being able to turn kittens into teacups or whatever else they teach (which in itself always squicked me out a bit, as an animal person).
* Harry is going to take his photograh album and a stack of letters with him. Good lord, what does he think he's going to do with them. The boy is an idiot.
This might have been purposefully done to show Harry being a little naive in terms of preparing for a war - but, really, if the hero hasn't done enough growing up by the seventh book to know better than this, he's hopeless.
* And we come to the sickening obituary by Elphias Doge. One more person whom Dumbledore managed to hoodwink into believing he was a noble person.
Elphias Doge is single-handedly the reason why Dumbledore being gay didn't surprise me at all. The guy had a mad crush on Dumbledore is all I'm saying.
* Skeeter calls the Potter-Dumbledore relationship unhealthy, even sinister. Brava! At least someone finally got it right.
I thought it was strange how this was worded, it had some odd implications. But I might be reading too much into that.
* Another chapter in which nothing happens comes to an end. I really need that alcohol to get through this.
LOL, I was entertaining the idea of rereading DH until I was reminded of how much nothing goes on in the entire book. I might still force myself to endure it.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-16 05:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 04:59 pm (UTC)It definitely has some paedo vibes about it. I'm not saying that DD was really sexually interested in Harry (though this is, IMO, what Rita implies here), but IMO Rita is right that the Harry-Dumbledore relationship is unhealthy. I really can't explain it, except that it feels creepy to me.
I could understand it if DD took an interest in Harry in order to help him prepare for his role in the war, but that's not what happens. Instead, DD seems to only want Harry as his puppet. True, that's what DD wants from his relationships with other people as well, but it's a bit different when it's a Headmaster and his 11-year-old student, who has no way of "defending" himself. Who is, in short, susceptible to manipulation in a way that an adult wouldn't be.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 07:01 pm (UTC)There's a number of things like that in the book. I mean, starting with Dumbledore in his fabulous purple robes (not to mention the pimp suit in HBP). You kind of want to read that as gay, but then stop short because it's such a retro-crypto-gay image. Like the "sissy" character that pops up in old movies (like, 1930s).
Then you have that reference to Aberforth and the goats. Umbridge and the centaurs. Ariana and her mysterious trauma. The many wands=dicks jokes. Merope and her father. Fenrir's "taste" for young kids.
There's this underlying sexuality running through the books that adults pick up on--and let's hope it goes over the heads of the kids--like a dirty joke.
Obviously, the crypo-gay references to Dumbledore were intentional. The goats probably were and Fenrir probably was. The wand jokes are to obvious not to be. Umbridge, Ariana, and Merope are still unknown.
This pedophilia thing with Dumbledore and Harry was hinted at a leeeeetle in either GoF or OotP. At least, I remember catching some reference and thinking that Fudge was either concerned about their relationship or implying it in order to discredit Dumbledore.
What's funniest about all of this (funny strange, not so much funny ha-ha) is that JKR didn't seem to realize the sexual tension between Sirius/Remus, Sirius/James, or Remus/Snape. With Snape, she had her twist already in place. But it does feel as though, with Sirius and Remus, she was doing damage control.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 10:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-16 12:35 am (UTC)I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-16 03:56 pm (UTC)There's tension between Remus and Snape, but I don't see sex. It could be sex if you want it to, but it's not inherently sexual in itself. Ditto the bond between Sirius and James. It's a bond, but not inherently a sexual one.
Thing is, I also know that this isn't going to stop slashers. Part of the fun of slash (for those who like it; it does nothing for me) is connecting the given dots in a way that leads to love, or at least sex. I'm not sure JKR realizes that the fact that the Remus/Sirius slash ship took off so strongly means that she was "writing them wrong," if she really didn't envision them as gay. So I agree that some of what's in the later books looks like damage control. I'm not sure whether Lupin/Tonks is or not, but Sirius' bikini girls almost certainly are. (Though even there, I can't help thinking that people probably wouldn't complain so much if she'd mentioned posters of male bodybuilders on his walls, if she had seen him as gay.)
Dumbledore in his fabulous purple robes...You kind of want to read that as gay
Actually, I just read it as the classic (one might even say cliched) fairy-tale image of what a wizard wears. And this was reinforced by the fact that it was established that wizard fashion is considered eccentric at best by muggle standards.
The other stuff, though--the goats, the wands, Fenrir--I agree with you on.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-16 04:31 pm (UTC)I don't really run to slashing either, so I tend to make the tension between Remus and Snape non-sexual. But there is definitely something there--this tantalizing feelings that these two people could be friends, could be good friends, if only they could get past the history.
It didn't surpise me at all that Snape would try to save Remus's life. (Well, he trying to keep Sirius from self-destructing and he hated Sirius).
I think with Sirius and Remus, the slashers gave a collective Squee! when Harry received a joint gift from the both of them in OotP. :) But, also, with Sirius and Remus, it's just a lot more fun if Remus is pining away all through PoA because he's supposed to be guarding Harry from his great love.
With Lupin/Tonks... it's so strange. I get the feeling that the Remus is just fighting it as hard as he can, while JKR is standing there with a whip, going "You will love this woman!"
Sometimes characters do get wills of their own.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-16 09:37 pm (UTC)Those tantalizing feelings are subjective, though. As I said above, I see two people who probably wouldn't be hanging around today without their shared past.
I think with Sirius and Remus, the slashers gave a collective Squee! when Harry received a joint gift from the both of them in OotP.
Yes--it was quite a loud squee. Even I heard it. ;) But that's affirming the consequent (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/affirmingtheconsequent.html).
But, also, with Sirius and Remus, it's just a lot more fun if Remus is pining away all through PoA because he's supposed to be guarding Harry from his great love.
Oh, I can totally get the "it's more fun" perspective. And don't get me wrong--I don't want to stand in the way of anyone's fun. It's just that saying "This is what's there in the books, and JKR is denying it!" is a far cry from saying "It's more fun my way."
I get the feeling that the Remus is just fighting it as hard as he can, while JKR is standing there with a whip, going "You will love this woman!"
Well, I don't, because I rather liked the idea of Lupin and Tonks back in OotP. I never expected it would actually happen, but "reserved older man/vivacious younger woman" is a pairing type that I very often enjoy in fiction.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-17 07:15 am (UTC)I get what you're saying. I think it would have been less, um, plausible as a ship if JKR hadn't bothered to deny it. That's my point--I think.
And I think you're maybe right about Snape and Lupin not having much in common other than their shared history. But that's what I think is so interesting about the idea of them as friends--that shared history. I once saw an interview with Yoko Ono, talking about John Lennon, and she said, "We were warriors together." I thought that was very poignant. Sort of like the Trio with the Troll, sometimes shared experiences can form a strong bond between people--even when they aren't on the same side. (There are also those reports of the Civil War reunions, in which elderly Union and Confederate soldiers embraced and wept together.)
Well, I don't, because I rather liked the idea of Lupin and Tonks back in OotP. I never expected it would actually happen, but "reserved older man/vivacious younger woman" is a pairing type that I very often enjoy in fiction.
I rather liked that idea back in OotP, too. In fact, I remember loving Fernwithy's Shifts, which told OotP from Lupin and Tonks perspective and paired them as a couple. It was a really lovely story and I was all primed to like Lupin and Tonks as a couple. But I couldn't get away from how uncomfortable Lupin seemed with the relationship--and how selfish Tonks seems in that hospital scene when she gets Lupin's friends to push him into being her boyfriend when he's emotionally vulnerable.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-17 05:40 pm (UTC)I don't think I agree. If it had been left open, I think people would still be gleefully claiming it as canon. That might have been the best way of making the greatest number of fans happy in the long run, because those who didn't ship S/R could just say "there's no proof"; but of course, then JKR couldn't have Teddy the Tragic War Orphan.
I think the main effect of JKR trying to deny the ship was just to make those who shipped it feel slapped down. (And I wonder, is it better or worse for her to do it in the text rather than via interviews? She's tried both methods of "ship control," and it's hard to say which one makes people angrier.)
But that's what I think is so interesting about the idea of them as friends--that shared history.
I don't really see that "shared history" as a shared emotional history of connection to each other, though. It's more like they were both friends of James, and just hung around with each other because of that. Just like Ron and Hermione are both friends of Harry, so they hang around with each other, but don't really have anything in common or even get along. JKR didn't succeed in making me believe that Ron and Hermione fell in love with each other, and she was trying to do that; her writing of Sirius and Lupin shows even less of a romantic/sexual bond, to my eye. YMMV, of course, but my point is that it can vary.
I couldn't get away from how uncomfortable Lupin seemed with the relationship
Oh, I am absolutely not going to defend the way JKR wrote the relationship. She succeeded in killing all liking I had for her version of it. But the scene in HBP struck me as mostly as Lupin's issues with himself. (Which still doesn't make it a good scene.)
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-18 07:22 am (UTC)I don't really see that "shared history" as a shared emotional history of connection to each other, though. It's more like they were both friends of James...
I think we're getting our wires crossed. When I talk about the shared history, I'm talking about Snape and Lupin, not Sirius and Lupin. Although, I don't really have a problem imagining (based only on what JKR has written, not even mentioning fanfic) Sirius and Lupin as either lovers or friends.
If I think about it, I don't think they would have been friends (Sirius and Remus), had they not shared a room and friendship with James. Even less would they have been likely to run around with Peter. Still can't figure that one out. Peter seemed so ripe for pantsing....
But, yeah, people can be friends only because they like hanging around with the same Alpha leader. Had Sirius survived, though, I could see Lupin getting tired of his emo act. And, hey, not leaving your good (incredibly impoverished) buddy a single thing in your will is pretty cold.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-18 02:24 pm (UTC)Ah, I did misunderstand you there. And well, just to wrap up, I get it if people like seeing them that way, but I still dispute that JKR "wrote sexual tension between them."
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-22 04:53 pm (UTC)Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-23 04:12 am (UTC)Well, that's more or less what I mean by "pilloried." But I just can't agree with you, sorry. I guess this is one way in which slashers and non-slashers will just never, ever understand each other.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-23 09:06 pm (UTC)Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-29 04:27 pm (UTC)Back from a weekend away, hence the belated reply. I debated whether to just let it slide, but I find I want to get this off my chest.
Not to make a big deal about it--though I admit I do feel extremely defensive about being a non-slasher because with the current fandom climate it means you get a lot of assumptions made about you--but you basically said above that there is NO possibility of reading the interactions between Snape-Lupin and Sirius-James in a non-sexual way. You leave no room open for that option when you say "Both of those pairs strike me as having clear sexual undercurrents. There's an intimate and physical element to their interactions that you can't really separate from sexuality." So forgive me if I can't see how I can not be making an argument that is, under your definition, "weird and hairsplitting and missing the point."
And nope, I see absolute zilch that is "intimate and physical" between Lupin and Snape. What I see is interpersonal tension and animosity. Sneer at my subtext-blindness if you like. With James and Sirius, well, friends are of course going to be physically at ease in each other's company, and that could be said to be one of the things that makes up sexual interaction, but to say that it is sexual interaction? I'm sorry, but no.
I'm bending over backwards not to rain on the slash parade by conceding that these things could be seen through a sexual lens. Hey, if somebody finds that enhances the story for them, I have no interest in telling them they can't see it that way (as if anybody would listen to me anyway!). But I feel like you're not doing me the same courtesy of allowing that my reading is valid or even possible.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-30 08:29 pm (UTC)I'm sorry, I said no such thing. Let me re-quote what I said and then explain what I meant by it:
Both of those pairs strike me as having clear sexual undercurrents.
There's an intimate and physical element to their interactions that you can't really separate from sexuality.
Having "sexual undercurrents" to a relationship doesn't mean it can't be read it a non-sexual way. It only means that, if a reasonable person so chooses, she can read it in a sexual way. She's not just making it up out of thin air, or a sex-obsessed and over-imaginative fan. Notice I did not say explicit or overt sexuality. I said undercurrents, which can be ignored or paid attention to or interpreted in many different reasonable ways depending on who's doing the reading. (I personally ignore it; I get no pleasure out of Snape/Remus or Sirius/James or Sirius/Remus). The only thing you can't do, IMO, is deny that the hints are there for those who want to look through those glasses. What's "weird and hairsplitting and missing the point" is to say "we could look at all of the interactions between the couple as platonic, therefore slashers are completely out of their minds to look at them in any other way," which is an argument I have seen numerous times.
that could be said to be one of the things that makes up sexual interaction, but to say that it is sexual interaction? I'm sorry, but no.
Why not? The point is that it could be, and it's valid to read it that way. I'm not saying you have to read it that way, for either ship. I'm saying I don't think you can deny that there's something that's actually in the text that leads people to imagine those particular relationships as sexual. It's not just slashers happily slashing everyone of the same gender just for the porn (though of course there's a lot of that in HP fandom as well).
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-08-01 02:45 pm (UTC)Why not?
Because it's like saying eggs are cake. Eggs are one ingredient that goes into making cake, but eggs are not the same as cake, and it seems absurd to say they are. Eggs can just as easily be used to make quiche, or eaten by themselves.
I was responding to your statement that this supposed "intimate and physical element" cannot be separated from sexuality. In my view, it most certainly can.
Notice I did not say explicit or overt sexuality. I said undercurrents, which can be ignored or paid attention to or interpreted in many different reasonable ways depending on who's doing the reading.
But you also said the undercurrents were "clear" and "sexual," implying that any non-sexual reading of the text is wilfully ignoring something that objectively exists. To return to the cake metaphor, it's like you're saying "There's cake flour in this story, but you could use it to make bread if you like that better." Whereas I would say, "There's generic flour in this story, and some people enjoy making cake with it."
I don't think you can deny that there's something that's actually in the text that leads people to imagine those particular relationships as sexual.
I see it rather differently. I think that any relationship between two characters that is even remotely interesting is going to be turned into slash by those who have the inclination to do so. That does not mean the original text is necessarily sexual, in my opinion, unless you're of the opinion that all relationships are sexual on some level.
pt1
Date: 2008-08-03 04:16 am (UTC)I was responding to your statement that this supposed "intimate and physical element" cannot be separated from sexuality. In my view, it most certainly can.
It can certainly exist without sexuality, if that's what you mean. It also can't help but be suggestive of sexuality (as well as of other things). To use your cake metaphor: if you mention eggs to a group of chefs, they will think of the various things they can make with eggs, and one of the things that will immediately come to mind will probably be "cake." Quiche and scrambled eggs and omelettes will also pop into their heads, but "cake" is a probable item that they would be likely to associate with eggs. Particularly if they are dessert chefs. You can't erase that association, although you can certainly put it aside and go ahead to make yourself a nice poached egg or whatever. That is what I was getting at when I said some of the elements in these relationships can't be separated from sexuality: if the author puts them in the text, quite a few fans are going to free-associate them with sexuality. Particularly if they have some interest in "queer readings" or are queer themselves.
But you also said the undercurrents were "clear" and "sexual," implying that any non-sexual reading of the text is wilfully ignoring something that objectively exists.
Well, no--I was saying that any attempt to deny the possibility of a reasonable sexual reading of the text is willfully ignoring something that objectively exists. I evidently didn't make myself as clear as I would have liked on that point. I think it's perfectly fair to disagree with these sexual readings. I just don't think it's fair to say they're coming out of nowhere. I think that would be rather like (for instance) a Ron/Hermione shipper at around the release of PoA or GoF saying that the Harry/Hermione shippers are pulling their readings out of nowhere. I have never interpreted the H/Hr relationship in a sexual light, but I can see where the popularity of the H/Hr reading came from. And I think denying the textual roots of that popularity is denying something that objectively exists, even though I never thought that was the right reading.
To return to the cake metaphor, it's like you're saying "There's cake flour in this story, but you could use it to make bread if you like that better." Whereas I would say, "There's generic flour in this story, and some people enjoy making cake with it."
I'm not saying there's "cake flour," i.e. that the default reading of the text must be sexual. I'm saying that "generic flour" isn't necessarily "bread flour," i.e. the default reading doesn't necessarily have to be platonic until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, in many shipping discussions, I've seen this assumption that any relationship has to be read as purely platonic until there's conclusive proof that it's not. This isn't just true for discussions of slash. I've also seen it in a lot of het-shipping debates. And while I can see where that assumption might make sense for some relationships (where the two characters are related, for example, or where they are the protagonists and we follow them closely enough that there are no veiled areas of their lives), I don't think it makes sense for characters like Sirius or Remus or Snape. I think "generic flour" should be just that: generic, not presupposed to be for either bread or cake.
Re: pt1
Date: 2008-08-06 03:46 pm (UTC)To use your cake metaphor: if you mention eggs to a group of chefs, they will think of the various things they can make with eggs, and one of the things that will immediately come to mind will probably be "cake."
But my point is that there is nothing about an egg which inherently suggests cake. Furthermore, in order to get cake, you have to add a lot of other things to the egg. Where do those other ingredients come from? Are they inside the text or outside it?
That is what I was getting at when I said some of the elements in these relationships can't be separated from sexuality: if the author puts them in the text, quite a few fans are going to free-associate them with sexuality.
I wouldn't use the word "inseparable," in that case, but I can agree with the second part of what you're saying. What's puzzling me is that you keep saying you think all kinds of readings are possible, but you also appear to me to be putting extra weight on the sexual reading (particularly in your "pt 2" post).
-I was saying that any attempt to deny the possibility of a reasonable sexual reading of the text is willfully ignoring something that objectively exists.
And I would just like to restate, for the record, that I have never denied that such readings are possible. Even in my very first post, which you responded to, I took pains to mention that. I have never said people who read these things sexually were obsessed fangirls happily making up relationships out of thin air. If something I am saying gives you the impression that that is what I believe, please tell me what it is, and I'll reword it to clarify.
I think "generic flour" should be just that: generic, not presupposed to be for either bread or cake.
You said that something in the text leads people to view certain relationships as sexual. In other words, that there is something about the relationships as written that naturally encourages readers toward the sexual reading rather than a non-sexual one. If the "flour" truly is generic, then it is factors outside the text which incline people to the sexual reading, not the text itself.
I'd just like to point back at the statement which made me post in the first place: it said that JKR had, possibly unbeknownst to herself, written sexual tension between various pairs of characters. That goes beyond saying there is cake flour in the story; that's saying there is cake batter, which only needs a good baking to turn into actual cake. I don't accept that. I probably should have just shut up and let it go, but I'm kind of tired of the assumption that everybody is a slasher and agrees with the slash reading.
Re: pt1
From:Re: pt1
From:Re: pt1
From:Re: pt1
From:pt 2
Date: 2008-08-03 04:16 am (UTC)I think that any relationship between two characters that is even remotely interesting is going to be turned into slash by those who have the inclination to do so.
Hmm, but isn't that tautological? Of course those who have the inclination to turn a given relationship into slash will do so. IMO, the question is, what gives large numbers of devoted fans that inclination? I don't agree that any relationship that is even remotely interesting will be turned into slash by a significant percentage of fandom. In HP fandom you can find at least a few shippers for any ship simply because of its size, but that's not true of other fandoms. And even in HP fandom there are huge differences in the levels of popularity for the different possible ships (both slash and het) that I think reflect differences in how the actual text portrays those relationships and the characters in them. Sirius/Remus and Harry/Draco are more popular than (say) Harry/Ron or James/Snape. Is this just because fandom finds the first two more interesting? I don't think so. If fandom finds them more interesting, I think it's because it finds them more slashable and not vice versa.
Re: pt 2
From:Re: pt 2
From:Re: pt 2
From:P.S.
From:Re: pt 2
From:Re: pt 2
From:Re: pt 2
From: