~~ fair flower, indeed.
Jul. 9th, 2004 08:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaOne of the things which became the most obvious to me while reading the end of OoTP was that Rowling was setting up the eventual confrontation between Harry & Voldemort as being a struggle between inhumanity (the rejection of love and the knowledge of that which is worse than death, which is what Tom Riddle had done, according to Dumbledore) and, of course, (Harry's) humanity. Harry isn't ready to really be the opposite of Tom Riddle quite yet-- that's obviously a work in progress-- but he has his mother's love inside him just as he has Voldemort's feelings inside him too (of all things). It's ironic, naturally, that Harry's in touch with the aspect of Voldemort that Tom Riddle had claimed to reject.
The subject of how JKR defines love came up in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
malafede's post on the nature of evil (in the Potterverse & elsewhere), and it occurred to me that this is a central question, isn't it? And of course any sort of answer involves a great amount of projection and guessing on my part (I like to call it intuition, but), since the books aren't finished. Even so, as usual, I have my ideas :>
I think ideally, Rowling defines Love as being something like Lily-- in that I think Lily's pretty close to her idea of a Mary Sue. So far, Lily has three aspects-- Pensieve!Lily, James'-girlfriend!Lily and Harry's-mum!Lily. I think they stand for the 3 different kinds of 'love' and/or positive relationship to others (the Other) in Rowling's mind.
Lily can also be defined by her parallels to Hermione (Muggle-born, Gryffindor, intelligent yet righteous), her contrast with Narcissa (both flower-named: purity vs. selfishness; wife of the Gryffindor poster-boy vs. the Slytherin; hot vs. cold) and her complex relationship to Molly. Harry can easily been seen as Molly's adopted son, and the Weasleys all share Lily's coloring, and Ginny had a crush on Harry in a looking-up-to sort of way which she seemed to get over-- really, it seems like Molly is equivalent to Lily's 'mother' aspect-- bossy and loud yet very giving. But she's not as complex because Lily has other important aspects in the text, I think, which can serve as part of JKR's commentary on love.
1) In the Pensieve, Lily's love (or kindness/compassion) is more like pity; it seems to be either a sort of superiority or a simple source of strength, depending on who you ask. She doesn't seem intimidated by the 'tough' boys. She's a Gryffindor, she's righteous, she defends the weak and stands on the side of 'right' regardless of who she's for or against (in that her loyalty seems more to her ideals than any particular person in the Pensieve scene). Note she doesn't really seem on the -side- of Snape even when she defends him-- her compassion is rather impersonal, like pity.
She doesn't seem to like either Snape or James because they're all asses (and she's right). She doesn't seem to stand for asshole behavior from anyone. I think it's possible (even likely) that Harry will evolve into pity for the Slytherins: Snape & Draco. Most definitely Draco. Of course they won't thank him for it, as Snape didn't thank Lily, but it's more of a reflection of goodness/rightness rather than a real help to the oppressed. In the end, the oppressed (whether Snape or the house-elves) have to help themselves. Rowling's Love sees potential but doesn't necessarily force-feed it.
Actually, this reminds me of Dumbledore, who appears to be all about allowing people to make the wrong choices while claiming he loves them.
This canon relationship with potential (and how people respond to Harry's and Ron's and Neville's differently) requires more thought. My first feeling would be to say that the ideal here is that potential should be recognized 'upon merit'-- so basically, when one merits attention through one's actions, then one deserves-- what-- help, I guess...? Harry has always gotten the lion's share of attention from everyone, but then he was seen to have proved himself as a baby. Harry was pre-packaged before birth, even, what with the Prophecy, so he had all sorts of shortcuts.
2) Romantically, Lily is fiery (no surprise) and not so much yielding (i.e., forgiving or accepting) as complementary. She finds a way to create some sort of balance, apparently, between her beliefs & desires and those of her lover. I don't see how she'd ever precisely -give in-, basically.
Still, the fact is, she becomes James' girlfriend. It begs the question: why?
In the end, I think she saw that he -was- righteous and her love went to the person with the potential to be like her. So here, Rowling's love pities the weak but loves those equal to oneself. One assumes that James' potential became manifest, and the things that turned off Lily before-- his arrogance, his false righteousness, his gall, what have you-- became positive (I'm guessing) when channeled differently. She 'forgave' him when and if he showed that he'd 'changed'. Lily doesn't give free passes, but when someone shows the result as having changed, she accepts it and shows love.
My speculation about her relationship with James is that it was a volatile sort of match (which JKR seems to favor), where both people are headstrong and passionate and agree on the important things-- so they can work together-- while they probably bicker about everything else. The major necessary basis would seem to be a shared moral understanding-- because the rest is just made up by sheer personal chemistry. I'm guessing that Lily was always attracted to him just as he was to her, but he was just distasteful to her because of his attitude. When James 'grew up' somewhat, he probably didn't have a lot of problems pulling Lily since he had all that charisma and self-confidence. So I think in romantic love, it's not so much about compatibility of temperaments as a sort of... willingness to hash things out and stand up to each other-- as forcefully as needed.
So love both is and isn't about agreement and some 'united front': it seems to be broken up into 'important' and 'unimportant' things. Some things, Lily just -couldn't- overlook, while some things just add spice, I imagine. I think in the end, Lily decided/realized that James was a 'good man', and that was that: she was willing to forgive a lot from him after that point, I'd imagine, 'cause he'd then earned her loyalty. Again with the earning. I don't pretend to know what he did, but he clearly did it: James must've become the person Lily needed him to be, the way Peter Parker 'changed' in a way MJ approved when he stopped being Spiderman. Of course, in the end, after the acceptance took place, Peter went back to being Spiderman, but the re-evaluation of 'oh, this is who you are! you're not who I thought you were!' had to take place first, before the acceptance of the whole.
3) The other side of Lily is the self-sacrificing mother-love, where there's no question of earning or deserving, and only a sort of blind affection for what amounts to a part of oneself.
The mother-love is sort of like the ultimate manifestation of Lily's character and her maidenly purity: she protects that which is the purest, most innocent part of herself & the one she loves with her life.
It's not so much about loving the enemy as love being the one thing The Enemy doesn't have, and thus has no resistance against, so one could use it to protect oneself and in the process, defeat them. Protective magic is thus somehow superior-- or can triumph over-- offensive, 'dark' magic. This seems related to the Patronus spell: you can drive off Dementors by thinking of happy things and conjuring a Protector. In Lily's case, she didn't conjure the Protector-- she was the Protector, so instead of the darkness feeding on her magic, it fed on her life.
Lily's love is not so much a weapon as it is a shield: it protects and gives strength to the lover in doing what's right and to the beloved in living itself(!). Love, it would seem then, allows us (motivates us?) to make the right choices, and these right choices in themselves create an environment where love can grow. The people who loved Harry give him the opportunity to grow up enough to have the strength to give that love in return. In the beginning, Harry just has an innate feeling of what's 'right' without a real deep connection with people, but I think what's important is his potential to make the right choices, because-- just because of who he is, I think, regardless of how he acts. (According to the text as I read it.)
On the one hand, there's the sense that love creates an environment where we can make the right choices, but on the other hand there seems to be this concurrent message that we need to -earn- the compassion we get once we get to the point of self-responsibility where we're supposed to be making said choices, like Snape. Basically, while you could say there are no excuses for doing the 'wrong thing' once you're mature or self-aware, you could always have a turn around. In this, I'm somewhat confused: clearly there's a difference between James' and Snape's turn around, however. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that James' behavior changed while in school, while he was still growing up; Snape's only changed afterwards (since Sirius and Remus kept saying that they were all 'just stupid teenagers'). And even then he just became 'less bad', since he remained a bully as a professor. In this area (once we get away from Lily's behavior and move on to the boys), there seem to be many well-documented contradictions.
JKR has said at one point in an interview that she can't imagine why someone would want Snape in love with them, and that the why will become clear in the next two books. A number of fans have said (or implied) that they can't imagine why someone (well, Lily) would want -James- in love with her. Ultimately, I think I can't make a judgement on this subject without the promised explanation of why we're not supposed to want Snape's love, because I think it would have to shed light on why we'd want James'.
Either way, I think it's the question at the crux of the books themselves, in a way, as I said: 'what does love mean?' and 'whose love is needed and why?' Because-- if Snape's love is unneeded-- it would seem to mean that the quality of one's love is a reflection of one's 'inner character'; since Snape isn't supposed to be seen as a 'good person' no matter what he does, perhaps this implies that his love would be impotent: unable to give any strength or protection. I'm not sure. This goes back tomalafede's discussion of what makes a 'good' (or conversely, 'evil') person, particularly in the Potterverse, and again, the text is contradictory on this subject at this point. I think it will be more clear by the end, though.
After all, everything seems to hinge on our choices defining us-- and yet some people keep making bad choices, while the 'good' guys do make mistakes, but eventually learn (or if it's Sirius-- or Draco-- they're just tragically immature). So some people can't learn? I'm a bit baffled. Maybe it's more like, 'some people get really bad breaks'. The difference, if I had to try and find one, between Draco (a 'bad' guy) and Sirius (a 'good' guy), is that most things Sirius does seem motivated by protectiveness rather than a desire to be protected. One seems to be equated with 'love' (even if immature or misguided) and another with 'selfishness'. So in JKR's world, selfless love protects without concern for itself while selfish love claims things for itself and ultimately leads to darkness.
The one thing neither Harry nor Sirius ever were, you know, is jealous (even if they could be selfish in other ways). I think perhaps this is important.
EDIT - It just occurred to me that in fact, Harry was jealous of Ron's being made Prefect and I think there was a flash in the Pensieve of him wanting Dudley's tricycle. It seems like often enough, Harry just takes certain (material) things for granted, though it's with a sort of innocent acceptance and wonder more than any sense that he feels entitled-- at first. Harry keeps being given things as gifts once he gets to Hogwarts, if he really needs them (like the broom or the Map, for instance). Possibly this is a plot-device type of convenience, or possibly this 'gift of love' aspect is the important part.
The subject of how JKR defines love came up in
malafede's post on the nature of evil (in the Potterverse & elsewhere), and it occurred to me that this is a central question, isn't it? And of course any sort of answer involves a great amount of projection and guessing on my part (I like to call it intuition, but), since the books aren't finished. Even so, as usual, I have my ideas :>I think ideally, Rowling defines Love as being something like Lily-- in that I think Lily's pretty close to her idea of a Mary Sue. So far, Lily has three aspects-- Pensieve!Lily, James'-girlfriend!Lily and Harry's-mum!Lily. I think they stand for the 3 different kinds of 'love' and/or positive relationship to others (the Other) in Rowling's mind.
Lily can also be defined by her parallels to Hermione (Muggle-born, Gryffindor, intelligent yet righteous), her contrast with Narcissa (both flower-named: purity vs. selfishness; wife of the Gryffindor poster-boy vs. the Slytherin; hot vs. cold) and her complex relationship to Molly. Harry can easily been seen as Molly's adopted son, and the Weasleys all share Lily's coloring, and Ginny had a crush on Harry in a looking-up-to sort of way which she seemed to get over-- really, it seems like Molly is equivalent to Lily's 'mother' aspect-- bossy and loud yet very giving. But she's not as complex because Lily has other important aspects in the text, I think, which can serve as part of JKR's commentary on love.
1) In the Pensieve, Lily's love (or kindness/compassion) is more like pity; it seems to be either a sort of superiority or a simple source of strength, depending on who you ask. She doesn't seem intimidated by the 'tough' boys. She's a Gryffindor, she's righteous, she defends the weak and stands on the side of 'right' regardless of who she's for or against (in that her loyalty seems more to her ideals than any particular person in the Pensieve scene). Note she doesn't really seem on the -side- of Snape even when she defends him-- her compassion is rather impersonal, like pity.
She doesn't seem to like either Snape or James because they're all asses (and she's right). She doesn't seem to stand for asshole behavior from anyone. I think it's possible (even likely) that Harry will evolve into pity for the Slytherins: Snape & Draco. Most definitely Draco. Of course they won't thank him for it, as Snape didn't thank Lily, but it's more of a reflection of goodness/rightness rather than a real help to the oppressed. In the end, the oppressed (whether Snape or the house-elves) have to help themselves. Rowling's Love sees potential but doesn't necessarily force-feed it.
Actually, this reminds me of Dumbledore, who appears to be all about allowing people to make the wrong choices while claiming he loves them.
This canon relationship with potential (and how people respond to Harry's and Ron's and Neville's differently) requires more thought. My first feeling would be to say that the ideal here is that potential should be recognized 'upon merit'-- so basically, when one merits attention through one's actions, then one deserves-- what-- help, I guess...? Harry has always gotten the lion's share of attention from everyone, but then he was seen to have proved himself as a baby. Harry was pre-packaged before birth, even, what with the Prophecy, so he had all sorts of shortcuts.
2) Romantically, Lily is fiery (no surprise) and not so much yielding (i.e., forgiving or accepting) as complementary. She finds a way to create some sort of balance, apparently, between her beliefs & desires and those of her lover. I don't see how she'd ever precisely -give in-, basically.
Still, the fact is, she becomes James' girlfriend. It begs the question: why?
In the end, I think she saw that he -was- righteous and her love went to the person with the potential to be like her. So here, Rowling's love pities the weak but loves those equal to oneself. One assumes that James' potential became manifest, and the things that turned off Lily before-- his arrogance, his false righteousness, his gall, what have you-- became positive (I'm guessing) when channeled differently. She 'forgave' him when and if he showed that he'd 'changed'. Lily doesn't give free passes, but when someone shows the result as having changed, she accepts it and shows love.
My speculation about her relationship with James is that it was a volatile sort of match (which JKR seems to favor), where both people are headstrong and passionate and agree on the important things-- so they can work together-- while they probably bicker about everything else. The major necessary basis would seem to be a shared moral understanding-- because the rest is just made up by sheer personal chemistry. I'm guessing that Lily was always attracted to him just as he was to her, but he was just distasteful to her because of his attitude. When James 'grew up' somewhat, he probably didn't have a lot of problems pulling Lily since he had all that charisma and self-confidence. So I think in romantic love, it's not so much about compatibility of temperaments as a sort of... willingness to hash things out and stand up to each other-- as forcefully as needed.
So love both is and isn't about agreement and some 'united front': it seems to be broken up into 'important' and 'unimportant' things. Some things, Lily just -couldn't- overlook, while some things just add spice, I imagine. I think in the end, Lily decided/realized that James was a 'good man', and that was that: she was willing to forgive a lot from him after that point, I'd imagine, 'cause he'd then earned her loyalty. Again with the earning. I don't pretend to know what he did, but he clearly did it: James must've become the person Lily needed him to be, the way Peter Parker 'changed' in a way MJ approved when he stopped being Spiderman. Of course, in the end, after the acceptance took place, Peter went back to being Spiderman, but the re-evaluation of 'oh, this is who you are! you're not who I thought you were!' had to take place first, before the acceptance of the whole.
3) The other side of Lily is the self-sacrificing mother-love, where there's no question of earning or deserving, and only a sort of blind affection for what amounts to a part of oneself.
The mother-love is sort of like the ultimate manifestation of Lily's character and her maidenly purity: she protects that which is the purest, most innocent part of herself & the one she loves with her life.
It's not so much about loving the enemy as love being the one thing The Enemy doesn't have, and thus has no resistance against, so one could use it to protect oneself and in the process, defeat them. Protective magic is thus somehow superior-- or can triumph over-- offensive, 'dark' magic. This seems related to the Patronus spell: you can drive off Dementors by thinking of happy things and conjuring a Protector. In Lily's case, she didn't conjure the Protector-- she was the Protector, so instead of the darkness feeding on her magic, it fed on her life.
Lily's love is not so much a weapon as it is a shield: it protects and gives strength to the lover in doing what's right and to the beloved in living itself(!). Love, it would seem then, allows us (motivates us?) to make the right choices, and these right choices in themselves create an environment where love can grow. The people who loved Harry give him the opportunity to grow up enough to have the strength to give that love in return. In the beginning, Harry just has an innate feeling of what's 'right' without a real deep connection with people, but I think what's important is his potential to make the right choices, because-- just because of who he is, I think, regardless of how he acts. (According to the text as I read it.)
On the one hand, there's the sense that love creates an environment where we can make the right choices, but on the other hand there seems to be this concurrent message that we need to -earn- the compassion we get once we get to the point of self-responsibility where we're supposed to be making said choices, like Snape. Basically, while you could say there are no excuses for doing the 'wrong thing' once you're mature or self-aware, you could always have a turn around. In this, I'm somewhat confused: clearly there's a difference between James' and Snape's turn around, however. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that James' behavior changed while in school, while he was still growing up; Snape's only changed afterwards (since Sirius and Remus kept saying that they were all 'just stupid teenagers'). And even then he just became 'less bad', since he remained a bully as a professor. In this area (once we get away from Lily's behavior and move on to the boys), there seem to be many well-documented contradictions.
JKR has said at one point in an interview that she can't imagine why someone would want Snape in love with them, and that the why will become clear in the next two books. A number of fans have said (or implied) that they can't imagine why someone (well, Lily) would want -James- in love with her. Ultimately, I think I can't make a judgement on this subject without the promised explanation of why we're not supposed to want Snape's love, because I think it would have to shed light on why we'd want James'.
Either way, I think it's the question at the crux of the books themselves, in a way, as I said: 'what does love mean?' and 'whose love is needed and why?' Because-- if Snape's love is unneeded-- it would seem to mean that the quality of one's love is a reflection of one's 'inner character'; since Snape isn't supposed to be seen as a 'good person' no matter what he does, perhaps this implies that his love would be impotent: unable to give any strength or protection. I'm not sure. This goes back to
malafede's discussion of what makes a 'good' (or conversely, 'evil') person, particularly in the Potterverse, and again, the text is contradictory on this subject at this point. I think it will be more clear by the end, though. After all, everything seems to hinge on our choices defining us-- and yet some people keep making bad choices, while the 'good' guys do make mistakes, but eventually learn (or if it's Sirius-- or Draco-- they're just tragically immature). So some people can't learn? I'm a bit baffled. Maybe it's more like, 'some people get really bad breaks'. The difference, if I had to try and find one, between Draco (a 'bad' guy) and Sirius (a 'good' guy), is that most things Sirius does seem motivated by protectiveness rather than a desire to be protected. One seems to be equated with 'love' (even if immature or misguided) and another with 'selfishness'. So in JKR's world, selfless love protects without concern for itself while selfish love claims things for itself and ultimately leads to darkness.
The one thing neither Harry nor Sirius ever were, you know, is jealous (even if they could be selfish in other ways). I think perhaps this is important.
EDIT - It just occurred to me that in fact, Harry was jealous of Ron's being made Prefect and I think there was a flash in the Pensieve of him wanting Dudley's tricycle. It seems like often enough, Harry just takes certain (material) things for granted, though it's with a sort of innocent acceptance and wonder more than any sense that he feels entitled-- at first. Harry keeps being given things as gifts once he gets to Hogwarts, if he really needs them (like the broom or the Map, for instance). Possibly this is a plot-device type of convenience, or possibly this 'gift of love' aspect is the important part.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 05:29 am (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/users/pedantic_celia/40831.html
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 09:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 09:29 am (UTC)Me too.
I think it may be some fandom related stage: first there's total obsession and immersion in said fandom, fangirling wildly; then segregating (I like H/D but man does R+Hr/Arthur+Rubber!Duck/Lucius+Pimp!Cane SUCK!) then there's bitterness (God, the creator/fans/text really chews, what was I thinking?)
Then you move on to a new fandom and the whole thing starts again! ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 02:00 pm (UTC)Well, um. I was trying to not be personal, here. I personally don't like everyone except Harry (who is exempt because I don't care how bad he gets, I'll love him anyway) at some point in time; I was trying to analyze what I see as the most likely candidate for JKR's concept of love without having my own slant. I mean, maybe Lily is probably not the only example, but I think she's (probably) pretty central and any analysis of her is (I think) important for understanding canon. Whether or not it's yicky is another matter :/
...As is whether or not I'm completely off-base here~:)
*hugs*
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 06:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 05:02 am (UTC)But I understand what's your intent is here. :) This was helpful, if nothing for subversive reasons. :D
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 02:05 pm (UTC)It's a rant, man. I wasn't trying to write a rant. This was as free of personal issues and vitriol as I could make it, and I really wasn't trying to be part of any 'spectrum'-- that is, I wasn't pushing a stance on Lily. I wasn't being a demagogue-- I was just speculating on JKR's direction in the nature of love, dude.
I don't like to be beaten over the head by someone's bias in a serious reading of a text, man :/
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 05:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 05:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 08:02 pm (UTC)Heheh, I think that's what they teach you in English class, anyway: say anything, just back it up :>