What is this thing called, Love?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

What is this thing called, Love?

Post  Potteraholic on Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:53 pm


This topic serves as an archive of a thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum as hosted on World Crossing, which ceased operation on April 15, 2011. It was copied/saved by Julia H. and reformatted/reposted by Potteraholic. ~Potteraholic


Quinn Crockett - May 15, 2009 1:13 pm
Edited by Kip Carter Jun 9, 2009 9:39 pm

Okay, first of all, the title of this Thread refers to an age-old (English) joke on how punctuation affects the meaning of a sentence (and if you get it, I heartily recommend the wonderful humor of ‘Eats, Shoots, and Leaves’.)

To me, JKR seems to be implying that we only get one chance at "true love"; that is, that we only ever fall in love once and if it doesn't work out, we're doomed to spend the rest of our lives alone. Personally, I find this to be a pretty big flaw in her writing.

Nearly all of the major HP characters seem to have been paired off (if they were going to be) by the time they left Hogwarts. Arthur and Molly Weasley, James and Lily Potter, Ron and Hermione, Harry and Ginny, et al. Yes, Ginny and Hermione (and even Ron) dated other people before settling into their permanent relationships. But we always knew who their true loves were and that they would come together in the end.

Then we have the Dumbledores who, though very long-lived, only ever loved once. Albus, who fell for the dashing but megalomaniacal Gellert Grindelwald, and was apparently so gun-shy afterward that he heeded the mantra of Dionne Warwick and chose to "never fall in love again." And Aberforth, who, having never moved on from the tragic death of his kid sister, was also apparently unable to love anyone (human, that is) and spent the long remainder of his life serving drinks in a dingy pub.

Snape loved a girl, but not enough, and spent the rest of his life being mad at the world. The Bloody Baron loved a girl to the point of murderous obsession and spent the rest of his death being reminded of his ruin. (Hm. There's a certain similarity there, actually).

In addition to her interesting take on romantic love, JKR also gives us the notion of Love as a factor of redemption, of heroism, of commitment and dedication, of loyalty and of sacrifice. She also specifically creates a villain who is literally born from a love-less union.

What do we think about this? How does Love (in whatever incarnation) coincide with the underlying theme of "our choices"? Are they even compatible? How much does one affect the other? And so on....
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

What is this thing called, Love? - posts #1 to #50

Post  Potteraholic on Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:55 pm


me and my shadow 813 - May 15, 2009 3:44 pm (#1 of 79)

Quinn, this is an interesting topic. I have a lot to say about the child born out of a loveless union... but what I have to say is not forum friendly. A lot of my responses will need to be highly censored, so I'm curious what others will post.

I just wanted to acknowledge this thread, that it's a good topic, and that I personally do like the idea that JKR has put forth very much: the "otherworldly" romantic idea that young wizards and witches get whisked away to a magical castle and fall in love. Why would it need to be Muggle-world realistic? I think it has enough broken hearts to be "realistic" and enough idealistic romance to be what some of us girls always dreamt of.

Regarding the Dumbledore family, I see it more as a mechanism to show how devastated and permanently screwed up an entire family can become from a traumatic event. I am off the top of my head reminded of Ordinary People.


Quinn Crockett - May 16, 2009 11:03 am (#2 of 79)

I guess I'd never thought about the idea of "being whisked away to a magical castle and falling in love". Interesting interpretation. And I suppose, on the practical side, how many people of their age group would young wizards and witches really have a chance to meet who aren't already Hogwarts students? Doesn't seem like they have any student exchange programs or community-based organizations (i.e. local Quidditch leagues).


Solitaire - May 16, 2009 3:39 pm (#3 of 79)

… on the practical side, how many people of their age group would young wizards and witches really have a chance to meet who aren't already Hogwarts students? - Quinn Crockett

I've said the same thing before. I think this is one reason so many kids link up with their future partners while they are still at Hogwarts. Face it ... the Wizarding marriage pool is rather small. Fleur and Bill seem to be an anomaly.


mona amon - May 16, 2009 7:27 pm (#4 of 79)

Yes, Ginny and Hermione (and even Ron) dated other people before settling into their permanent relationships. But we always knew who their true loves were and that they would come together in the end. (Quinn)

This is true of most books, I think, except for the really big books like War and Peace where the characters have enough room to fall madly in love, get dumped, (or become disillusioned with that person), go through a period of crisis, then recovery, then fall for someone else, sometimes after many years. JKR had to 'telescope' all that, I guess.

I do not feel JKR was as good with the romance as she was with other aspects of the books. Ron and Hermione are OK, but I feel absolutely no chemistry between Harry and Ginny, or is it only me?


Orion - May 17, 2009 12:50 am (#5 of 79)

No, you're not the only one, mona. JKR is a bit awkward when it comes to Harry and romance. He's probably too close to her. Like a child, and many people feel awkward when their children start to date in earnest. In earnest earnest, I mean.

JKR writes for children. They dream of the one and only love and they don't want to read about divorces, patchwork families, broken relationships, marrying late in life. They can't even imagine getting older than thirty.

Why do wizarding folk come of age at seventeen? It's a children's book and children feel that at age seventeen they are incredibly adult and should be of age and independent. And when you're grown up you have a relationship.

In our modern society we have turned 17-year-olds into immature, over-large children, sedated with Twitter and Facebook and expensive gadgets. But in fact at age seventeen their puberty lies behind them. In a society less cut off from nature, let's say an indigenous people in the rain forest, a seventeen year old is right in the centre of society. And that's where they should be. And suddenly finding your love at seventeen and keeping them isn't so ludicrous any more.


PeskyPixie - May 17, 2009 8:18 am (#6 of 79)

I did not realize that James and Lily were flirting in the Snape's Worst Memory scene, but maybe I'm just a bit thick about these things.

"In a society less cut off from nature, let's say an indigenous people in the rain forest, a seventeen year old is right in the centre of society ... suddenly finding your love at seventeen and keeping them isn't so ludicrous any more."

That's an interesting point, Orion.


Julia H. - May 19, 2009 1:48 am (#7 of 79)

The HP books have a double approach to various problems: One is the "fairy tale" approach. Fairy tales approach realistic problems of life in a symbolic (rather than realistic) way, suitable for children. In these tales, love is for eternity, and the search for the ideal partner is presented only in a symbolic way (like in the form of a contest and various tasks, which help the Princess choose her true love, for example, or through the "false bride" motif, where the true bride is replaced by a witch). The other approach of the HP books is more realistic and Harry's first love with Cho (which does not work), as well as Lupin finding true love later in life and having problems even after the wedding ceremony belong to this realistic approach.

I agree that the Harry-Ginny relationship is not very convincingly introduced - on another thread we have recently been discussing that Ginny is a sort of "price", a part of the reward at the end of Harry's fight and does no have a very important role before that, except that she has to be rescued by the hero from the power of the dragon villain.

Love as a main theme in the novels is not necessarily romantic love. Harry loves a lot of people (friendship and family count more than romantic love most of the time) and he can also love people in a general (not romantic or even personal) way. A mother's love (or lack of it) is an extremely important topic. I would say the most significant romantic love in the plot is Snape's, but it is unrequited, never fulfilled and its most important form is a rather spiritual one.

The relationship between Hermione and Ron is well-written and entertaining.

The Bloody Baron loved a girl to the point of murderous obsession and spent the rest of his death being reminded of his ruin. (Hm. There's a certain similarity there, actually). (Quinn)

There is a definite similarity though with obvious differences. What I see as the most important difference is that the Baron commits suicide out of guilt and mourning and then he can't do anything about his guilt any more and remains the same hopeless Bloody Baron forever. Snape also wishes he were dead but in the end he chooses to stay alive and do something about his guilt, which proves to be useful for other people (and in this sense a positive force). That, in spite of everything, ultimately leads to his redemption (IMO at least), which is apparently impossible for the Baron. I definitely see a message here concerning the different answers these two men gave to very similar problems.


PeskyPixie - May 19, 2009 6:09 am (#8 of 79)

Dumbledore and Snape both have tragic experiences with romantic love which influence who they are and how they contribute to the story. I'm being rather vague, I know, but I have to go out now.


Mrs Brisbee - May 19, 2009 7:02 am (#9 of 79)

There is a definite similarity though with obvious differences. What I see as the most important difference is that the Baron commits suicide out of guilt and mourning and then he can't do anything about his guilt any more and remains the same hopeless Bloody Baron forever. Snape also wishes he were dead but in the end he chooses to stay alive and do something about his guilt, which proves to be useful for other people (and in this sense a positive force).-- Julia

Another difference is that the Bloody Baron's murder is hot-blooded; Snape only ever set out to kill generic people so his act was very cold-blooded. Then he balked when a person he cared for was targeted. Snape does, as Julia notes, choose to stay alive and try to do something useful. The Bloody Baron and Snape were very different in a lot of ways.

Helena and Lily are just "objects" of possessive love. Neither man considered the women's feelings to be of value while they lived. It is a very odd, one-sided love.


Julia H. - May 19, 2009 7:35 am (#10 of 79)

The comparison that the Baron was a hot-blooded murderer and Snape a cold-blooded murderer just does not ring true to me. The parallel between their stories is the way they brought about the death of the person they loved and how they felt afterwards - apart from that, we really can't compare them. As rejected lovers, they were both hot-blooded and I do see a fatal hot-blooded action with both: The Baron kills Helena in his anger and frustration, while Snape, in another situation of anger and frustration, insults his love and kills the relationship between them and that leads eventually to her death.

Another similarity is that they were both Slytherins who loved non-Slytherin women and they did not understand the feelings of these women. With regard to Love as a theme in the novel, it may be important that two Slytherins a thousand years apart fall in love in similar ways outside their own houses, make similarly tragic mistakes, but the second one manages to do what the first one cannot do: to redeem himself and Slytherin House through love for a non-Slytherin. (Their "titles" may further emphasize the connection between them: one is a Baron, the other one is a Prince.)


Mrs Brisbee - May 19, 2009 8:00 am (#11 of 79)

The comparison that the Baron was a hot-blooded murderer and Snape a cold-blooded murderer just does not ring true to me. The parallel between their stories is the way they brought about the death of the person they loved and how they felt afterwards - apart from that, we really can't compare them. As rejected lovers, they were both hot-blooded and I do see a fatal hot-blooded action with both: The Baron kills Helena in his anger and frustration, while Snape, in another situation of anger and frustration, insults his love and kills the relationship between them and that leads eventually to her death.

I think it was fundamentally different beliefs in right and wrong that killed Lily and Snape's relationship. Snape may have sincerely believed that if he could keep Lily, she would be safe, but I don't think that was actually a particularly realistic view, since it would have required Lily to want turn herself almost into a non-being to acquiesce to such a relationship.

Snape sold a family to their death to score brownie points with Voldemort. That's why I say his act was cold-blooded, because he didn't really consider them at all as long as they stayed generic. When he found out he had marked Lily for death, he didn't want her to be killed, so I say he had no hot-blooded desire to bring about her destruction. The Bloody Baron, on the other hand, very personally and intentionally targeted Helena.


Julia H. - May 19, 2009 8:22 am (#12 of 79)

I think it was fundamentally different beliefs in right and wrong that killed Lily and Snape's relationship.

Yes, but the M-insult was a decisive landmark. After that there was no way back.

Snape may have sincerely believed that if he could keep Lily, she would be safe, but I don't think that was actually a particularly realistic view...

Sure, not realistic. I've said it before (sorry for the repetition) that (given that we know Snape the DE did not want Lily to be killed and that he was ready to do anything to keep her alive) I can see only two possibilities, : 1) He either did not realize /believe etc. that she would be targeted by the leader he was joining or, 2) if he did realize that and still joined, then he loved her more just before he went to Dumbledore than at the moment of his joining, which implies that his love for her must have grown while he was a DE. The question is which scenario is more probable.


Quinn Crockett - May 19, 2009 10:08 am (#13 of 79)

I like Julia's comments on the Fairy Tale aspects of romantic Love in this series. That makes a lot of sense. It's just that, as a reader, I'm not sure I like the idea of taking relatively realistic characters like the Trio and cramming them into a sort of archetype.

The comparison that the Baron was a hot-blooded murderer and Snape a cold-blooded murderer just does not ring true to me. - Oh, it definitely does to me. Hence my putting forward the idea that there is a similarity between the two in the first place.

2) if he did realize that and still joined, then he loved her more just before he went to Dumbledore than at the moment of his joining, which implies that his love for her must have grown while he was a DE. - In my view, you're confusing the words "love" and "obsession" here. Because, as we all know, Snape was perfectly okay with letting Voldemort murder a defenseless infant if it meant he, Snape, could keep his "precious". If he had truly "loved" Lily as an actual person instead of merely as an idea, he would have known that she would have never, ever, been able to live with this. Dumbledore thought the same thing. Hence his, 'You disgust me!"


Julia H. - May 19, 2009 10:45 am (#14 of 79)

Well, when he calms down, he agrees to protect Lily's son for Lily. I definitely think Snape loves Lily. I don't think mere obsession would make Snape do all that he does in her memory or would redeem him in Harry's eyes. Anyway, changing "love" for "obsession" would still leave us with the same question (regarding what I wanted to say).

I'm not sure I like the idea of taking relatively realistic characters like the Trio and cramming them into a sort of archetype.

I think this duality goes through the whole series in various aspects. We may or may not like it - if we want everything to be realistic, then the archetype thing may be frustrating. If we want the novels to be essentially fairy tales (I'm sure some younger readers may want just that), then certain things simply do not fit (e.g. the deaths of so many good characters, for example). But the combination of archetypes and symbols with quite realistic aspects of life can also be viewed as an original tone in the novels. That's why it is difficult to decide whether it is a children's series or what.


Quinn Crockett - May 19, 2009 12:44 pm (#15 of 79)

the combination of archetypes and symbols with quite realistic aspects of life can also be viewed as an original tone in the novels. - Oh yes, definitely! Which is why I can't always decide whether or not I like it


mona amon - May 19, 2009 10:34 pm (#16 of 79)

Helena and Lily are just "objects" of possessive love. Neither man considered the women's feelings to be of value while they lived. It is a very odd, one-sided love. (Mrs Brisbee)

For some reason it's always the differences that jump out at me when two things are being compared. Now Snape probably didn't understand Lily's feelings or even tried to understand them, but I think he did 'consider' or 'respect' her feelings, once she had made them very clear to him. When she tells him that she will not have anything more to do with him, he accepts it and never bothers her again, ever. While the Baron, in a similar situation, denies Helena her right to her feelings since they were opposed to his own, and murders her.

I think the two are fundamentally different. To Severus, Lily is a person, but one whose feelings he does not understand. To the Baron, Helena is not a person, but the object of his desire.


Julia H. - May 20, 2009 1:02 am (#17 of 79)

Good point.

Oh yes, definitely! Which is why I can't always decide whether or not I like it. (Quinn)

It's like a sort of crossover (between a fairy tale and a "school novel", for example).


Mrs Brisbee - May 20, 2009 4:15 am (#18 of 79)

For some reason it's always the differences that jump out at me when two things are being compared. Now Snape probably didn't understand Lily's feelings or even tried to understand them, but I think he did 'consider' or 'respect' her feelings, once she had made them very clear to him. When she tells him that she will not have anything more to do with him, he accepts it and never bothers her again, ever. While the Baron, in a similar situation, denies Helena her right to her feelings since they were opposed to his own, and murders her.--
mona amon

Right, that's one reason I said the two were very different, and categorized the Baron as a hot-blooded killer, but Snape as a cold-blooded one. I just don't see Snape as the kind of guy who starts killing left and right on a whim.

I think that a character suffering from "possessive love" is very controlling of the object. The Baron murders Helena, as if her life was his to dispose of when he didn't get his wishes satisfied. Merope doesn't kill Riddle, but she basically drugs him and steals his life. Snape doesn't touch Lily, but he attacks those around her that he doesn't want to be close to her.

Well, when he calms down, he agrees to protect Lily's son for Lily. I definitely think Snape loves Lily. I don't think mere obsession would make Snape do all that he does in her memory or would redeem him in Harry's eyes. Anyway, changing "love" for "obsession" would still leave us with the same question (regarding what I wanted to say).-- Julia

It may have been a great revelation to Snape that if he really loved Lily, then he should consider her feelings. Maybe it was one of those light bulb moments, were she shifted from an object in his thoughts to an actual person (by an inch or so, anyway ).


mona amon - May 20, 2009 8:18 am (#19 of 79)

that's one reason I said the two were very different, and categorized the Baron as a hot-blooded killer, but Snape as a cold-blooded one.

For me it's a different difference . The Baron was a killer. Severus was not (I don't count the killing of Dumbledore as murder). Being the faithful servant of a murderer may be just as morally reprehensible as being one, but still, they are two different things.


Julia H. - May 20, 2009 9:03 am (#20 of 79)

I don't count Snape as a murderer either.

It may have been a great revelation to Snape that if he really loved Lily, then he should consider her feelings. Maybe it was one of those light bulb moments, were she shifted from an object in his thoughts to an actual person ... (Mrs Brisbee)

I imagine there must have been revelations and light bulb moments for Snape, one way or another. It is possible that while he is scared to death about Lily, his mind is full of one thought only, i.e. to save her life, and (on the basis of what he looks like on the hilltop) he may feel it is a desperate, hopeless attempt anyway. Then Dumbledore listens to him and it must mean some relief to him from the greatest stress (now there is someone to help, someone able and powerful). Dumbledore both scolds Snape and gives him some hope and at some point Snape must calm down a little and begin to think (Dumbledore has given him food for thought after all), and then he agrees to help protect the whole family. Then something similar happens when Lily dies. It is first only the loss, but then Dumbledore reminds him that Lily died in an attempt to protect her son, i.e. that protecting Harry was her last wish, and Snape sort of agrees to help fulfill her last wish. This is definitely a way of respecting Lily's feelings and wishes. I find it hard to imagine that someone goes out of his way to fulfill the dying wish of a mere "object" of an obsession, when he cannot hope to "possess" her any more in any way, with or without fulfilling her wish.


me and my shadow 813- May 21, 2009 12:27 am (#21 of 79)

When she tells him that she will not have anything more to do with him, he accepts it and never bothers her again, ever. While the Baron, in a similar situation, denies Helena her right to her feelings since they were opposed to his own, and murders her.

I think the two are fundamentally different. To Severus, Lily is a person, but one whose feelings he does not understand. To the Baron, Helena is not a person, but the object of his desire. - mona

There is an enormous point that many of us have discussed yet haven't reconciled: that Severus conveniently made excuses for Lily's "handicap". He must have made an exception for her to his Slytherin friends, time and time again. And, if he did so, what went on in his mind about why and how he could justify her being exempt from the Mudblood category -- for years? And, if he did construct such a mechanism around her, to "exempt" her from being placed in that category, was that "Love" or was it a self-serving mechanism? And... if it was self-serving, is he so different than other young boys and girls who do the same in order to feel accepted by the one they are drawn to?


Mrs Brisbee - May 22, 2009 8:37 am (#22 of 79)

There is an enormous point that many of us have discussed yet haven't reconciled: that Severus conveniently made excuses for Lily's "handicap". He must have made an exception for her to his Slytherin friends, time and time again. And, if he did so, what went on in his mind about why and how he could justify her being exempt from the Mudblood category -- for years? And, if he did construct such a mechanism around her, to "exempt" her from being placed in that category, was that "Love" or was it a self-serving mechanism?-- MAMS

I never considered before that Snape might have come up with his "mechanism" of exemption because of Lily. He indicates to her that her obvious magical talent makes her okay, though his hesitation indicates he is aware of Purebloodism. I don't know that we have enough evidence to say that he believed Pure Blood=value before he met Lily, but shifted to Power=value afterwards, but it is an interesting thought. He might have used that explanation to his DE friends for awhile, but he seems to embrace Pure Blood=value again by the time their friendship dissolves completely.

In addition to her interesting take on romantic love, JKR also gives us the notion of Love as a factor of redemption, of heroism, of commitment and dedication, of loyalty and of sacrifice. She also specifically creates a villain who is literally born from a love-less union.--Quinn Crockett,

Love is shown to be a powerful motivator, although not always for good. For example, Xenophilius Lovegood truly loves his daughter, but because of that he betrays the thing most dear to her: Her friends. So I think that in the HP universe, the presence of love doesn't necessarily mean that good will come of it.


Julia H. - May 22, 2009 12:48 pm (#23 of 79)

So I think that in the HP universe, the presence of love doesn't necessarily mean that good will come of it. (Mrs Brisbee)

Dumbledore beautifully describes love as both wonderful and terrible. I think the HP books show us both sides of love. It can make people happy or unhappy, it can save lives or send people to their deaths, it can redeem one but it can also make one very, very vulnerable. Xeno's story exemplifies the "terrible" side of love. Love and despair drive him to do something that he (it seems to me) does not want to do. Still I don't think the message of the books is that the influence of love can be both good and bad. Such a message for these books would seem to be too simple to me. The main dividing line is between the presence of love and lack of love. For me, the message is that love (instead of being simply the perfect way to happiness or some silly, romantic daydream) is a complicated, many-sided force, often fight and often suffering; and yet, the real problem is always the lack of love. It is the inability to love or to experience love that makes people bad. For people who can love, for people who are motivated by love, - there is hope, in spite of their respective weaknesses, failures and bad choices. (They are also the ones who are generally able to repent.) Those who do not love when it would be their duty to love or do not love at all are the ones who turn this world into a nightmare.


Chemyst - May 22, 2009 7:43 pm (#24 of 79)

And, if he did construct such a mechanism around her, to "exempt" her from being placed in that category, was that "Love" or was it a self-serving mechanism?

For me, this answer was in the final look into the Pensive. In a pre-Hogwarts innocence on a summery day at the park, Lily had put the question to Snape, "Does it make a difference, being Muggle-born?" Snape hesitates briefly and then says, "No, it doesn't make any difference."

He knows he is ? on one level ? lying to her (because pure-blood status did matter to many); but I think he is also speaking the truth as surely as if he were making an unbreakable vow. For Him, her being Muggle-born did not make any difference. So that years later it was the lie, the broken vow (that her being born-born did make a difference to him) more than it was the insult to her heritage that made Lily unable to trust Severus any longer. So, as it played out, it was not a self-serving mechanism.

• the Harry-Ginny relationship is not very convincingly introduced

Indulge my pickiness, but I thought it was wonderfully introduced in PS. Just Right with a shy but very aware Ginny at King's Cross. It was still on point when Harry first visits the Burrow and up through the Valentine Card fiasco. But from the Secret Chamber and onwards I agree it is not convincing.


wynnleaf - May 23, 2009 6:31 am (#25 of 79)

Great thread, Quinn.

Indulge my pickiness, but I thought it was wonderfully introduced in PS. Just Right with a shy but very aware Ginny at King's Cross. It was still on point when Harry first visits the Burrow and up through the Valentine Card fiasco. But from the Secret Chamber and onwards I agree it is not convincing. (Chemyst)

I think JKR is very good with the love of friends and family, but not romantic love. It's interesting that at the end of DH, Harry isn't thinking of being with Ginny, even though he sees her. He's thinking of joining Ron and Hermione, who he is clearly far more close to than Ginny, for all that he's supposed to be in love with her.

I agree with Julia that JKR is primarily making a case for the life-changing value of being able to love and being able to be affected by one's love for others. Those who aren't affected by love are the most evil characters and can't really be changed. Those who do love may do some very wrong things, but still have the possibility to change for the better.


Quinn Crockett - May 23, 2009 11:07 am (#26 of 79)

Those who aren't affected by love are the most evil characters and can't really be changed. -

Which is an interesting point because so many people did not believe that Narcissa and Lucius Malfoy could ever change, even though they were clearly demonstrated to have been acting out of love for both one another and their son. And to me, the fact that they are sitting in the Great Hall with the rest of the Battle of Hogwarts victors really underlines that there was a significant change in these characters. The way the author specifically describes them as "looking as if they weren't sure they should really be there" yet she keeps them seated at the table rather than having Lucius and Narcissa simply grab Draco and Apparate the heck outta there.

The Malfoys perfectly complement Xeno Lovegood, whose love for his child (as was pointed out earlier) drives him to actively capitulate with the enemy, as opposed to having his personal interests merely work in the enemy's favor. But at least in Xeno's case, we get a sense that he is doing something he does not truly want to do.

On a separate topic, JKR also seems to think Lily's growing infatuation with James is perfectly obvious in the Snape's Worst Memory scene. Even after reading JKR's own explanation of what she'd written and several re-reads, I personally just don't see it. Your mileage may very, of course.


Solitaire - May 23, 2009 12:07 pm (#27 of 79)

Lily's growing infatuation with James is perfectly obvious in the Snape's Worst Memory scene

She doesn't seem too infatuated with him to me. She seems angry with him for acting like a bully, and she initially sticks up for Snape ... until his famous remark.


Julia H. - May 23, 2009 11:54 pm (#28 of 79)

Which is an interesting point because so many people did not believe that Narcissa and Lucius Malfoy could ever change, even though they were clearly demonstrated to have been acting out of love for both one another and their son.

I think the Malfoys change in the sense that their love for each other makes them ultimately unfit to serve Voldemort, who cannot feel love and cannot respect this feeling in others and demands devotion for himself only. We do not necessarily see a change of character in the Malfoys, but we certainly see their enthusiasm for Voldemort drop to zero level, and that is a sort of change and an improvement in their case.

BTW, the three of them have different experiences: As for a positive change, I see the most hope for Draco in the long run (post-DH) as he has not yet gone very far on the road following in his father's footsteps. He has seen the reality of Death Eater life and he does not like it, and - luckily for him - the war ends before he could be further corrupted and hardened as a DE. He becomes a DE initially to make up for his father's failure but when his father is freed, he sees him humiliated and probably tortured by Voldemort, which may be the ultimate eye-opener for him.

For Narcissa, loving her son means that she will do anything for his life and well-being for or against Voldemort if necessary, but finally she realizes that Voldemort means death to all three of them, who cannot "love" Voldemort more than each other.

Lucius is clearly the most difficult case, and his love is the most corrupted love in the family. For a long time, I don't see him do anything for his son and his wife that he does not do for himself as well. (I mean he does not take extra personal risks or sacrifices to save Draco and Narcissa, although I think he is greatly responsible for their ordeal.) It becomes slightly different during the battle, when he tries to manipulate Voldemort so that he could find Draco. This manipulation is very much in character with him, however, and he does not "choose" between Draco and Voldemort until the last moment, when the choice he has to make is a very sharp one: In the castle, he spends his time either fighting for Voldemort or looking for Draco, and he chooses to do the latter. It is another question that he may be clever enough to realize that, on the one hand, Harry being alive probably means the end of Voldemort and, on the other hand, Voldemort's victory would not be likely to increase their chances of survival so there is little point in fighting for him anyway. I'm not sure that he ever becomes a much better man (essentially) after the war, but I think he is probably glad that the Voldemort era is over and his family have both survived and escaped punishment.


Orion - May 24, 2009 1:27 am (#29 of 79)

What Xeno does is not terrible at all. He acts like every parent whose child has been abducted and they are told not to call the police. Of course it would be the best thing if they called the police but they are in existential panic and so they obey and even lie to the police instead of doing the right thing. How can anybody condemn such behaviour? Nobody can condemn Xeno if they haven't been in his shoes, IMO.


Julia H. - May 24, 2009 2:14 am (#30 of 79)

I think I used the word "terrible" in connection with Xeno, but I did not mean to condemn what he did. I agree that no one should condemn him who has not been in his shoes. I wanted to say love shows its terrible side in Xeno's case, making him painfully vulnerable. Everybody who truly loves anyone is vulnerable through their loved ones. Love can make people do wonderful things, but it can also drive them to despair.


Mrs Brisbee - May 24, 2009 4:38 am (#31 of 79)

Julia, I think your post #23 is excellent. Where there is love there is always hope. I also agree with you on Xeno. The situation is terrible. He is faced with trading good people's lives for his daughter's. I reserve my condemnation for Voldemort and the Death Eaters, though, since they are the ones who created that terror.


Solitaire - May 24, 2009 4:42 am (#32 of 79)

Even the Trio, three teenagers, understand Xeno's betrayal of them ... and why he did it. They can see that he is not really in his right mind because of his fear over Luna.


mona amon - May 25, 2009 8:31 pm (#33 of 79)

Even the Trio, three teenagers, understand Xeno's betrayal of them ... and why he did it.

I'm not sure about this. They seem furious with Xenophilius for betraying them and don't say anything about it being understandable. They, at any rate, do not put themselves in Xenophilius' shoes. They are very much in their own.

There is one fleeting moment when Xenophilius spreads his arms in front of the staircase and Harry has a sudden vision of his mother doing the same in front of his cot, but on the whole I feel that the scene is written in accordance with JKR's remark, "I loathe a traitor".

It's impossible for me to put myself in Xenophilius' shoes, his situation is too horrible to contemplate. So I'll agree with Mrs Brisbee. It's people like Voldemort and his DEs who deserve all the condemnation for putting ordinary people into situations where they feel forced to do reprehensible things.


Solitaire - May 25, 2009 10:06 pm (#34 of 79)

Okay ... Ron and Harry were pretty angry at Xeno's betrayal ... but even Ron acknowledges how scared Xeno must have been and how much pressure he'd been under trying to keep them there. If you read the first page of Chapter 22, The Deathly Hallows, Hermione explains why she let the DEs see her and Harry (but not Ron) ... so the DEs would realize he'd not been lying. I didn't say they liked being betrayed ... I said they understood why he'd done it. JM2K, but it's what I see when I look at their conversation once they are away from Xeno.


Orion - May 26, 2009 9:02 am (#35 of 79)

Hermione's action is a model of intelligence because true intelligence has to be compassionate, too. She's really heroic here.


Soul Search - May 26, 2009 12:46 pm (#36 of 79)

I thought JKR's best statement of "Love" was Bill and Fleur.

We don't see a lot of the "love" aspect of their relationship until the infirmary scene after Bill was attacked by Greyback. Mrs. Weasley assumes that the wedding will be called off and Fleur reacts rather strongly, clearly demonstrating that her relationship with Bill is based on true love. Mrs. Weasley finally acknowledges Fleur and their relationship with the offer of the Tiara.

I had to admire Fleur here. She kept her cool while spending a lot of time with her less-than-enthusiastic future Mother-In-Law and her future sister-in-law calling her "Phlegm" at every opportunity. Not until Mrs Weasley suggested the wedding would be called off did she react and put them in their place. Fleur loved Bill. Bill loved Fleur. Done deal.


PeskyPixie - May 26, 2009 12:58 pm (#37 of 79)

I agree that JKR gives us a wonderful example of love with Bill and Fleur, but their scenes are just so annoying to read!


Solitaire - May 26, 2009 4:33 pm (#38 of 79)

The other day I was rereading the DH chapter where the Delacours arrive for the wedding. Fleur's beautiful mom seems to have chosen her husband not for his looks but for his other good qualities. It seems Fleur has had the example of her parents' genuine love for each other before her, so she knows what love is. It must have been tough to put up with the snide remarks and ill tempers of the women of the Weasley household all those months.


PeskyPixie - May 26, 2009 6:59 pm (#39 of 79)

Yes, Fleur loves Bill (and I completely agree with her having an example of not choosing a mate for merely looks), but she has an irritating personality until DH. She would have won more friends if she were less affected and more perceptive of others. I don't think her pretty face alone led to others believing that her love for Bill was superficial.


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 3, 2009 5:39 am (#40 of 79)

On the Hermione thread there is a discussion about whether Hermione asked her parents' permission before altering their memories. Assuming she did not, I see this as Love like a parent has for a small child. I can see the parallel between Hermione's love for her parents, and Xeno's for Luna, where he will do anything to protect her, and Snape's love for Lily, where he wanted to protect her but didn't consider her feelings for her family. It is interesting because this kind of love takes into account the physical well-being of the charges, but doesn't account for how the charges might feel about what is going on or what they might want done. It's a kind of love where the one in the "parental-role" wants to bubble wrap their "child" and stick them away safe some place where they can't get broken.

I think a good contrast in different parental styles of love can be found in Molly and Arthur at the beginning of DH. Molly tries to prevent the trio in their preparations, but Arthur lends them aid so that they will be able to better do what they need to do.

I'm also reminded of when Sirius Black, in OotP, who tells the children that some things are worth dying for. At that point, Ginny leads the others in sitting down and waiting, instead of rushing off to see her father who might die. I thought that took a lot of courage on her part, and showed a love that encompassed a respect for what he was doing and his convictions.

Does love require some sort of respect for a persons beliefs and convictions as well as their physical well-being? I see that parental love might be unconditional, but at some point should the parent take into account their child's feelings even when it goes against the parent's instinct to keep a child safe at all costs? What about when the love is not between a parent and child? For example, could Dumbledore still love Grindelwald when he ceases to have any respect for Grindelwald's ideals?


Solitaire - Jun 3, 2009 10:59 am (#41 of 79)

could Dumbledore still love Grindelwald when he ceases to have any respect for Grindelwald's ideals?

Interesting question, Mrs. Brisbee. What does cause one to stop loving someone else? If the love grew out of shared goals, beliefs, and ideals, is it possible to truly love someone when you can no longer respect his or her ideals and values ... or when you realize they weren't what you thought they were? Grindelwald's flight following Arianna's death certainly doesn't seem to indicate much care or concern for Albus and what he must have been feeling. He was left to shoulder that burden and deal with his brother's anger alone ... with no emotional support from the "loved one." That doesn't sound much like love on Grindelwald's part.

Is it possible that Grindelwald never returned Dumbledore's love ... that he was just using him? Could this have been one reason why Dumbledore did not want to meet him in battle? It certainly would have been humiliating to have his past follies thrown up in his face. If DD still loved Grindelwald despite everything, however, it could have been that he feared he might have to kill Grindelwald in order to stop him ... certainly a very real possibility in such a battle. As I say, it is an interesting question ...


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 4, 2009 8:21 am (#42 of 79)

Is it possible that Grindelwald never returned Dumbledore's love ... that he was just using him?--Solitaire

Good question. Bathilda Bagshot, who saw the relationship from her nephew's side, seemed to indicate that both boys were enamored with each other, so I do have to think that Grindelwald really did enjoy Dumbledore's company and conversation. Did Dumbledore know why Grindelwald was expelled from Durmstrang? Dumbledore seemed to be on board with Grindelwald as long as he thought he was setting up some sort of "benevolent" dictatorship, but I'm not sure Dumbledore was aware of Grindelwald's worser nature. Or perhaps he was aware of it but disregarded it because Grindelwald claimed he was misunderstood, and Dumbledore didn't want to acknowledge the truth.


Solitaire - Jun 4, 2009 9:23 am (#43 of 79)

Some say love is blind. I think it must have taken Grindelwald's abandonment following Arianna's death for Dumbledore to begin to see reason. Even then it may have taken seeing his warped ideas in action to make it undeniable.

I'm curious, though ... Nurmengard managed to keep him incarcerated. How, when DEs were able to break out of Azkaban? Was Nurmengard secured in some other way than Dementors? Or was it that Grindelwald lacked the power of Voldemort? Just wondering ...


PeskyPixie - Jun 4, 2009 11:54 am (#44 of 79)

From that small glimpse we get of Grindelwald in Nurmengard, I get the feeling that he did have affection for Dumbledore, but he loved his own twisted dreams and ambitions even more.


Quinn Crockett - Jun 9, 2009 2:38 am (#45 of 79)

Grindelwald's dreams, however twisted and megalomaniacal they may have been, seem to have been completely shattered by the time Voldemort comes to him in Nurmengard. I agree, though, that he does seem to have retained affection for Dumbledore. The fact that neither wizard could bring himself to kill the other during their famous confrontation seems a fair indication that they still cared for one another on some level.

I appreciate the discussion of Fleur and Bill's love for one another and agree with the interpretation of Fleur's character. Imagine the patience and understanding she had to have had to be able to endure the tension from her future mother- and sister-in-law.

Speaking of Molly, she is kind of the only representative of "a mother's love" that we get to see. At least, that we are meant to relate to. Narcissa is also brought into the story as a fully formed tigress protecting her cub. But because she bats for the other team, we don't tend to see her in the same light as Molly.


PeskyPixie - Jun 9, 2009 7:13 am (#46 of 79)

The major difference I see between Molly/Lily and Narcissa is that the latter first puts someone else's life (i.e. Snape's) at risk to protect her child. I see more of a parallel with Xeno (jeopardizing others for the survival of one's child), however, Narcissa lacks Xeno's conscience. Love, especially parental love, can cause one to do terrible things. However, the Malfoys seem to have no sense of guilt when they toss someone on a busy freeway.

Hmm, I'm not being very clear at the moment and it's frustrating, but I have to get going now. I'll elaborate later on.


Quinn Crockett - Jun 10, 2009 9:24 am (#47 of 79)

I'm not sure I agree that Narcissa put Snape's life at risk. Snape was under no obligation to comply with her request for the Unbreakable Vow. And he had his own reasons for agreeing to it.

Xeno is an interesting case. He is made out to be this slightly fanatical, sort of hippy-dippy Ed Begley Jr of the wizarding world. But the war hits home for him very hard. He is forced to confront it in a very real way that literally compels him to choose between what is "right" and what is "easy". I say "easy" because we could clearly see that Xeno did not like having to act as he did, that he did so only out of desperation. His love for his daughter drove him to that choice, a choice he was not at all happy to make.


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 11, 2009 5:30 am (#48 of 79)

I see more of a parallel with Xeno (jeopardizing others for the survival of one's child), however, Narcissa lacks Xeno's conscience.-- PeskyPixie

Indeed. They both love, but if the threat to their loved ones was removed, there would be a big difference in how they would choose to act. Xeno shows pain to his conscious when he harms other, but Narcissa doesn't care as long as she gets what she wants.

Xeno is an interesting case. He is made out to be this slightly fanatical, sort of hippy-dippy Ed Begley Jr of the wizarding world. But the war hits home for him very hard. He is forced to confront it in a very real way that literally compels him to choose between what is "right" and what is "easy". I say "easy" because we could clearly see that Xeno did not like having to act as he did, that he did so only out of desperation. His love for his daughter drove him to that choice, a choice he was not at all happy to make.-- Quinn Crockett

I think you have a good point that it is still a choice that Xeno makes, and agree with the "right" and "easy" designations. I can understand his desperation, though, and see that his actions cause him pain.


Quinn Crockett - Jun 12, 2009 12:51 am (#49 of 79)

Yeah, I think we could almost say that there is some aspect of Love that makes characters act as they do. Or perhaps more accurately, choose to act as they do.

Harry acts out of Love, but I think more out of a sense of loyalty and responsibility to the community who, for good or bad, puts him in the position to do so - even in his first year of Hogwarts.


Steve Newton - Jun 13, 2009 12:51 pm (#50 of 79)

I don't think that Xeno did choose between easy and right. He had to choose between 2 rights, protecting his child and fighting evil. No choice was good.
 
 


Last edited by Potteraholic on Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

What is this thing called, Love? - posts #51 to #79

Post  Potteraholic on Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:57 pm


PeskyPixie - Jun 16, 2009 6:11 am (#51 of 79)

"I'm not sure I agree that Narcissa put Snape's life at risk. Snape was under no obligation to comply with her request for the Unbreakable Vow. And he had his own reasons for agreeing to it." -Quinn

It doesn't matter whether Snape accepts or not. The point is that Narcissa actually asks someone (it could have been anyone; it doesn't have to be nasty little Severus) to risk their life for her child. Women such as Lily and Molly are as fiercely protective of their offspring as Narcissa is of Draco, but I can not imagine them putting someone else in the dilemma of risking their life for their child while they are alive to defend them. This is the reason I compared Narcissa with Xeno (who is an even tighter corner than she is). Love and circumstances force him to choose between two horrible options, however, we see that he is in a moral dilemma about his decision. Love for his child wins out, but he understands that he is wrong to endanger Luna's friends because of it. I do not see this element of conscience in Narcissa. Does this make her a worse person than the other parents, or a better mother? After all, her sole focus is her child.


Julia H. - Jun 17, 2009 3:45 am (#52 of 79)

I agree with Pesky. Narcissa asks Snape to risk his life to save Draco - by doing something that Narcissa believes to be very dangerous (trying to kill Dumbledore) and by offering his life as a guarantee for Draco's life (by taking the Unbreakable Vow). Apart form that, Narcissa does not seem to give much thought to the idea that saving Draco will necessarily include killing Dumbledore, moreover that her son might become a murderer in the process. The Weasleys, on the other hand, however much they love their children, accept the idea that these children (once they are of age) will risk their lives for others.

I don't think that Xeno did choose between easy and right. He had to choose between 2 rights, protecting his child and fighting evil. (Steve)

I don't think there was an "easy" option for Xeno at all, perhaps not even a "right" option. I would say he had to choose between two "wrongs": Between letting her child die and betraying Harry.

The difference between him and Narcissa is indeed, as Pesky says, the fact that he was apparently tormented by the necessity of such a choice, the fact that the choice was difficult for him.


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 17, 2009 5:36 am (#53 of 79)

I have to agree with PeskyPixie, too. Narcissa doesn't appear to have any qualms about Dumbledore being murdered, making sure the murder happens if Draco should fail, or having Snape drop dead from an Unbreakable Vow, if any of it will save her son. She never displays remorse or empathy for her victims.


Quinn Crockett - Jun 19, 2009 1:02 pm (#54 of 79)

Narcissa is definitely no saint and clearly has a skewed set of values. But I think what is important is that she can love. She clearly loves her child - and not just based on her HBP/DH behavior. She was set up from the beginning as a doting mother, sending her boy care packages from home as far back as Book 1, not wanting Draco to be sent too far away to go to school, etc. I would say she also seems to love her husband as well.


Ludicrous Patents Office - Jun 28, 2009 7:15 pm (#55 of 79)

Family love is very important. The best example is the Weasleys. Siblings may have issues with each other but they stand together. That is what made Percy's betrayal worse. He was always welcome back into the fold though.

Another example is Regulus and Sirius. There wasn't much love and warmth in the family for Sirius. In the end Regulus chose to try and stop Voldemort knowing his death was imminent.

Bellatrix and Narcissa have affection for each other. They differed on a very fundamental level though. Narcissa would protect Draco at all costs. Whereas Bellatrix saw him as a tool for Voldemort. LPO


PeskyPixie - Jun 30, 2009 8:21 am (#56 of 79)

When Sirius calls Regulus an idiot for joining the DEs (OotP), I get the feeling that underneath their extreme differences, Sirius can't help but love his younger brother.


Quinn Crockett - Jun 30, 2009 12:54 pm (#57 of 79)

I agree. "Idiot" is a relatively harmless thing to call someone. And I don't think Sirius ever blamed Regulus for following the family party line. It's just unfortunate that Sirius never learned how Regulus actually died. He would have been very proud of his brother.


Julia H. - Jul 1, 2009 3:37 pm (#58 of 79)

I agree that Sirius may love his brother deep down. "Idiot" can express anger or a sense of being hurt, but it expresses an emotion either way. But I find it very sad that Regulus did not think of asking for his brother's help when he found out Voldemort's secret. Sirius was in the Order, after all, and Regulus could have got more than just moral support from him.

Bellatrix and Narcissa have affection for each other. (LPO)

My daughter is rereading HBP, and she asked me the other day whether I thought Bellatrix loved Narcissa. I don't really know. On the one hand, she does not want Narcissa to get into trouble with Voldemort; on the other hand, she does not seem to be sympathetic when Narcissa and her family are mistreated by Voldemort and when Narcissa is clearly distressed. The sisters seem to have a strong relationship, but Bellatrix apparently wants to have control over Narcissa, and Narcissa tries to shake that off.


Orion - Jul 2, 2009 4:16 am (#59 of 79)

Bella seems to be totally emotionless in the relationship to her sister. The only things she says to her are "shut up, you idiot!" or something like that. If she does express some sort of love, other than general concern that they both (!) could get into trouble, I'd like to read that. Does anybody have a quote? Bella is as affectionate as Umbridge.


Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 4, 2009 7:10 pm (#60 of 79)

Orion I think the Bella calling Narcissa Cissy is somewhat affectionate. I have to admit though your comparison to Bella and Umbridge is quite good.

Bella is very protective of Cissy and Lucius (and herself) in DH when they are trying to figure out the sword issue. LPO


Solitaire - Jul 4, 2009 7:52 pm (#61 of 79)

I don't know ... I wouldn't put it past Bella to give up Narcissa or Lucius if Voldy made her choose. We know she didn't have much sympathy for Narcissa's son in the "Spinner's End" chapter.

She killed her own niece, Tonks. Did she kill her sister Andromeda's Muggle-born husband, too? Or did she authorize it? I don't think Bella has a clue what love is. She is too twisted and burned out inside.


haymoni - Jul 5, 2009 4:31 am (#62 of 79)

The only person Bella (I still like "Trixie" better!) seems to care for is Voldy.

I wouldn't use the term "love" though - more like she worships him.

Definitely twisted - Twisted Trixie!


Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 5, 2009 5:55 pm (#63 of 79)

I see Bella as kind of a crack addict to Voldemort and the dark side. When push comes to shove she will chose her addiction over her family. She may feel some love and affection for Cissy but it is not enough to overcome her addiction. As to her killing Tonks and possibly Ted she would feel justified in doing that. We see it today in "honor" killings.

LPO


Steve Newton - Jul 6, 2009 7:06 am (#64 of 79)

All right haymoni! I like Trixie, too. I think that is in line with the way the family members called each other.


Solitaire - Jul 7, 2009 8:20 pm (#65 of 79)

I do not think anyone ever called her Trixie, given the fact that we never see it used by anyone. I do not think she is the Trixie type. Then again, maybe some of her victims (now dead) called her that--Tonks and Ted, for example--thus accounting for their exit from this world!


PeskyPixie - Jul 8, 2009 8:52 am (#66 of 79)

I love calling her Trixie for the same reason I adore calling McGonagall 'Minnie McG'. You just know there will be dire consequences if either catches you calling them by these nicknames!

I don't know that I would define Bellatrix's feelings for the Dark Lord as 'love'. It's more of an unhealthy obsession. The woman is crackers after all.


haymoni - Jul 8, 2009 3:41 pm (#67 of 79)

Just saw the bit in the HBO First Look (I think that's where it is.) where Helena says that Bellatrix is "barking".

Barking Bella - she is definitely crackers.

I always wondered about the Mr. Lestrange. Did he die?

What did he think of his wife's obsession?

It may have been an arranged pure-blood marriage, so maybe he didn't even care in the first place.

Which one was she married to anyway? The two Rs always confuse me.


Solitaire - Jul 8, 2009 4:45 pm (#68 of 79)

She married Rodolphus, and I agree ... it was probably an arranged marriage. What normal man would want to be married to a virago like Bella????? Surely their hatred of Muggles and love of torturing people were the only things they had in common.


jose043 - Jul 8, 2009 5:12 pm (#69 of 79)

Would that be the first that has happened? LOL


Julia H. - Jul 9, 2009 1:21 am (#70 of 79)

I don't know that I would define Bellatrix's feelings for the Dark Lord as 'love'. (PeskyPixie)

I don't think I would. It does not fit with the way love is generally seen in the series. Bellatrix's feelings are not a redeeming force, and they make Bellatrix neither better, nor more vulnerable. Or more human. Besides, the object of these feelings is the personification of hatred and the denial of love.


mona amon - Jul 9, 2009 7:37 am (#71 of 79)

Well said, Julia. Her adoration of Voldemort seems more like some sort of neurosis than love. I can't figure out whether she is evil because she worships the personification of evil, or whether she worships the personification of evil because she is so utterly evil. But still, Bellatrix is not a cold fish. She does seem to care for her sister, so could have cared for others as well. It doesn't make her less evil, but it does make her a bit more interesting, and a shade more human than, say, Umbridge, who is not shown to care for anyone.


Solitaire - Jul 9, 2009 9:50 am (#72 of 79)

Bella certainly has intensity. I call it that, rather than passion. I don't know that she has concern for her sister so much as fear of being blamed for Narcissa's having violated the Dark Lord's strictures to tell no one about the task he has set for Draco. Based on Voldemort's comments to her in the DoM--"Be quiet, Bella," said Voldemort dangerously. "I shall deal with you in a moment. Do you think I have entered the Ministry of Magic to hear your sniveling apologies?"--I have always believed she was severely chastised for her role in the debacle which resulted in the destruction of the prophecy.

I don't really think Bella is capable of love. I believe her soul and her mind were certainly damaged after so many years in Azkaban, around the soul-sucking Dementors. I think her proximity to Voldemort when not incarcerated has also taken its toll on her soul and psyche. Her evil pure-blood beliefs certainly were given free reign the first time around, and time has not softened her in that respect. I would have liked to see some interaction between Bella and Andromeda, though. Actually, I'd have liked to see a scene with all three sisters.


Quinn Crockett - Jul 9, 2009 9:25 pm (#73 of 79)

Bellatrix's feelings are not a redeeming force - Excellent point. Also interesting to compare Bellatrix and Umbridge. Ironic that Bellatrix actually comes off looking more human when you put it in those terms.


Elanor - Jul 10, 2009 12:06 pm (#74 of 79)

Very true about Bellatrix! A "neurosis" summarizes the kind of unhealthy lust for Voldemort she displays in the series very well.

I am currently re-reading the DH and I thought of this thread when reading the description of Bill and Fleur's wedding. The description of Fleur as she joins Bill is really beautifully written:

"While her radiance usually dimmed everyone else by comparison, today it beautified everybody it fell upon. Ginny and Gabrielle, both wearing golden dresses, looked even prettier than usual, and once Fleur had reached him, Bill did not look as though he had ever met Fenrir Greyback." (p.121).

"Once Fleur had reached him, Bill did not look as though he had ever met Fenrir Greyback"... a beautiful illustration of the power of love, isn't it?


haymoni - Jul 10, 2009 6:22 pm (#75 of 79)

I love that part, Elanor.

Guess Phlegm's not so bad after all...


PeskyPixie - Aug 2, 2009 5:09 pm (#76 of 79)

For Umbridge, that nasty pink bubblegum (unless you happen to like it, of course ; I personally detest it).


PeskyPixie - Aug 16, 2009 2:53 pm (#77 of 79)

I don't know why, but Fleur is one of my least favourite characters. Her and Grawp. But, yes, she does love Bill. Many girls would have fallen for him due to his looks, but it doesn't matter to her even when Fenrir rips him apart. It reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons where Marge says, "For a woman, it doesn't matter if a crocodile bit his face off." (Or something like that.)


severusisn’tevil - Oct 24, 2009 4:02 pm (#78 of 79)

I never liked Fleur particularly, either. She seemed high-maintenance and shallow. But I changed my mind when she stayed with Bill after Greyback.

And as for Bella. She's my least favorite. I mean, really. And yet, there is something admirable in her intensity. I think it's interesting on a personal level that I dislike her so much when, if she had fought for "our side" I would probably have liked her quite a lot. She is extremely focused on doing what Voldemort asks of her and is devoted to him. Now, if she had been an Order member who followed DD's orders to the letter and cared for *him*---oh, wait. That's Severus. She is the antithesis of Severus Snape. Neat.

And Grindelwald: I don't think Nurmengard would have held him any better than Azkaban held DEs. I think it is possible that a duel with the man who was once his best friend may have been a wake-up call. Especially when DD spared his life. Maybe Grindelwald came to the realization that what he was doing was wrong and believed he deserved punishment. Doesn't DD mention that he "showed remorse in prison?"


Puck - Nov 2, 2009 7:44 am (#79 of 79)

But is she the antithesis of Snape? She never questioned the LV, as Snape would sometimes DD. Plus, Snape loved Lily, not DD.
 
 
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: What is this thing called, Love?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum