About female characters [Archive]

wickedwickedboy

May 31st, 2009, 5:39 pm

I can see where you're coming from on this, but for me, what makes JKR such a good children's writer, is that she has moral complexity and doesn't shrink from depicting the world as it is - a world which isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters and where most people make a mixture of good and bad choices.

The idea is great, when taken to extremes, it is not, imo. Sure the world is not divided into Order members and Death Eaters. But the flaws of Order members cannot in any way be compared with the "flaws" [sic] of the Death Eaters. Constantly killing, torturing, maiming, threatening and the like is just simply not the same type of "grey" that is characterized by someone having a flaw of loftiness, nagging, unwillingness to listen or general recklessness. The latter can surely cause big problems for a person, but they are simply not on the same level at all as killing and such.

So the idea is all right - evil people like Voldemort may have something positive going on, but to try to equate all people under this ideology is nonsense to me, because morally, Kingsley is just a far better person overall, whatever his faults.

I certainly wouldn't say Merope was a woman whose "morals were not good" and deserved her end. She is depicted as having an awful life even before she did anything wrong, the victim of her "crime" is depicted as being highly morally questionable himself and her actions, though deeply misguided and portrayed as having catastrophic consequences (for others, more than for herself), were taken out of love, not malice. It's hard for me to perceive her story as a simple morality tale, where it's easy to distinguish good from bad.

Another woman about whom I would like to know more, and whose story raises tough moral questions, is Mrs Crouch. Her actions in springing a convicted Death Eater from jail are arguably morally wrong, certainly against the law and cheat her son's victims of the justice they deserved, and have terrible consequences for others (Cedric Diggory possibly wouldn't be dead, if it weren't for Mrs Crouch). And yet they were motivated by the purest of motives - parental love.

This is exactly what I am talking about. To me, the lesson was not that "victims" or "people who show love" have open field day on morally incorrect behavior. If the motivation of "love" sends a person out on a killing spree against innocents - that person is morally wrong, among other things.

Mrs. Crouch's behavior was deplorable - parental love doesn't save her in the least. What happens here is I feel that one gets so caught up in the little highlighted story that they forget the bigger picture. The story in a vaccuum certainly draws Sympathy for Mrs. Crouch (as does Merope's) and her major sacrifice (her life) for her son due to parental love is alone and of itself, besiged with grand messages of valor and wonder. But the big picture is that Mrs. Crouch is sacrificing her life to free her son, when that son was out murdering, torturing and maiming numerous innocents. Those dead victims are not highlighted in the romantic little tale of parental love. If you lose sight of that, then the wrongfulness of Mrs. Crouch's sacrifice is blown out of proportion in the wrong direction, imo. She behaved completely immorally, totally wrongfully and her sacrifice was for a absolutely and totally nefarious purpose, imo. Parental love holds no merit whatsoever in that case, because there are some other parents out there who due to Crouch Jr.'s actions, will never be able to show that type of love to their own children again.

Merope was a victim and that certainly draws and deserves sympathy. However, she then went on to make a victim out of Tom senior. All her trauma and heartache growing up does not give her open field day to make victims out of others. She behaved in a completely nefarious manner in feeding a muggle love potion and seducing him. Then when he "woke up" and left and she found herself with child, she killed herself and left her child an orphan. Everything about that is selfish and again, being a complete victim does not give her open field day on innocent babies, especially her own. If she was medically determined to be medically unfit, that is distinct, but the way the story is told, with her losing her magic and all, she simply whithered away due to circumstance into a state of self-pity and despair. Perhaps that is a medical condition - in which case some of her culpability is lessened, but the canon didn't appear to present it as such. Nonetheless, what came from Merope's version of "life" was the total ruination of a family (Riddle Senior's) and ruination of her son. So I do not see her in any way representing anything positive. While on a personal level she merits great sympathy (for she was victimized), that does not play a part in my thinking at all when she moved on to undertake acts against others.

JKR played the 'victim' card quite a lot in HP series for numerous characters. Merope and Mrs. Crouch are just two of many, including the hero of the tale. But if JKR actually hoped to send a message in that regard, then she wasn't understanding that there are those who feel very strongly about victim's rights. Meaning, that she totally wins when it comes to the portrayal (they are victims after all) - but to go on and show them victimize others, in this type of dastardly way, kills the entire idea. The new message is that victims will make victims out of others (unless they happened to be named Harry or Neville). And that the original sympathy should play some role in the judgment against these offenders who were victimized, lessening the harshness of our judgment. But it can't work that way - one cannot justify victimization on the fact that the new offender was herself victimized (usually by another). The offender who was victimized has learned nothing from their previous horrific experience and their victimized state, except that they must pass that same horror on to others. That does happen in real life, but if we allow it to serve as a mitigating factor, then we lessen the horror of the subsequent victimization, imo. Secondary victims, usually innocent or at minimal undeserving (Tom Sr. was not required to love Merope for instance), deserve the same amount of sympathy as the victimized offender originally got, but it never works out that way. There is very little, if any sympathy going around for Tom Riddle, Sr., imo, it is reserved for Merope, still based on her original victimization as the justification for her subsequent bad acts. This is made worse because Tom was rich and attractive - if he'd been poor with unnotable looks, and his background included being tortured by his parents, perhaps he'd get a little more focus - but I wouldn't count on it. Generally, the focus remains on the offender who was victimized sometime in the past because it explains the more recent offenses.

And I don't see Narcissa as ending the series on any more moral a note than she started it. She is prepared to keep the secret that Harry is still alive and sell out her boss Voldemort, in order to protect and/or avenge her own child. How is that particularly different from the attitude she has shown throughout the series, selfishly thinking her own family's needs supersede other people's rights? It seems to me that the only thing that has changed in this situation is Voldemort's treatment of Lucius and Draco - now that he is menacing them, Narcissa is prepared to act against him and ally herself with his enemies, but I don't think she's grown morally at all. Her actions are incidentally better, but her motivation remains the same, AFAISI.

If this is portrayed as her turning "good", then I find it a very dubious message to send out to children about morality - it's "good" to care only about your own family and tread on everyone else to protect them.

I agree. I guess I was not clear. This is exactly how I see it also.

(This also worries me, though, about JKR's soft-focus portrayal of Mrs Crouch, which seems perilously close to me to be endorsing mothers who protect their murderer sons from the force of the law)

Right - but that is only if your take on it leaves that fact out. That is part of the canon, we also found out about his guilt. So it is up to the reader to find fault with Mrs. Crouch's behavior and not get stuck in a tunnel while viewing her interaction with her son, imo, otherwise you do see endorsement where in reality, I don't believe any exists at all.

JKR could have done this with a ton of people. She could have had Narcissa kill a dozen Aurors to free her sister from Azkaban with a side bar where Narcissa talks to someone about her childhood with Bella - romanticizing it and garnering sympathy for both sisters. Again, you'd have those who saw the side bar in a tunnel and it is very easy in that situation to forget who you are dealing with, imo.

Kanksha

May 31st, 2009, 7:28 pm

The female character I would most want to know about?

I am most intrigued by the three black sisters - Andromeda, Bellatrix and Narcissa - all three brave and courageous women and exceedingly devoted to what they believed to be right. Raised by the same parents in the same environment, I find it extremely fascinating that they all went on to make such drastically different life choices.

Aside from whether they were inherently good/bad/evil, they stood for what was most important to them, and guarded it with everything they had.

I would like JK to tell us more about all three of them, what their early lives were like.

Sheree

May 31st, 2009, 10:22 pm

I am most intrigued by the three black sisters - Andromeda, Bellatrix and Narcissa - all three brave and courageous women and exceedingly devoted to what they believed to be right. Raised by the same parents in the same environment, I find it extremely fascinating that they all went on to make such drastically different life choices.

I also have that interest - how in the world did three women from the same family, all growing up together, end up so drastically different?
I understand when you have a person in a family who is different (like Sirius), or even when you have a family divided (some Voldy supporters, some not), but you don't normally see three sisters who are so different. Indeed, other than the fact that Andromeda and Bellatrix resemble each other, and other than the fact that Bellatrix and Narcissa are rooting for and working for (for the most part) the same bad guy, they seem to be as alike as teddy bears, jumping ropes, and toy guns.

houseelf25

May 31st, 2009, 10:27 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
Definitely Hermione. I connect with her because I've got a similar personality, and I like that she speaks her mind and is so intuitive.
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
I'm very intrigued by Bellatrix Lestrange. I really would like to know more about her past-what in her life made her that way?
As for the light side, I love Tonks and Luna just because they're so zany but they're also super intelligent. Ginny's also awesome because she's feisty and fun. I kind of like the juxtaposition I see between her and Hermione.
3. A character you'd like to know more about?
hmm....probably Bellatrix, as I said before, or possibly Tonks. We don't get much about her except that she can change her shape and that she loves Lupin and that she's an Auror.

meesha1971

May 31st, 2009, 11:36 pm

Yeah, but for a price. All DEs did what Voldemort wanted them to so they could get close to him and be rewarded by him. It's the same with Bella I think. She may care about him but she certainly sees him as her way to power. She obviously wants to win his affections because that would mean she gets a positions of power in his new regime.

But she says in her speech at the Ministry before she is taken away that she expects a reward from him. That's what I meant when I said she uses him as much as he uses her.

I agree to some extent, but I don't romanticize Bella's love for Voldemort either. I see it as more of an obssessive love that stems from his reputation as the most powerful Dark Wizard as well as his propaganda about cleansing the wizarding world. She sees herself as Voldemort's second - believes he trusts and depends on her above all others. She sees herself being by his side rather than serving him.

I think we also have to take into consideration the passage of time after she makes that statement as well. Bella spent 14-15 years in Azkaban in the presence of dementors. I dont' think she was particularly stable to begin with, but I feel that made her even more unstable. When Harry first sees her in that memory of the trial, she's very controlled - even regal - a haughty queen looking down upon her minions. She's less controlled and more volatile when she gets out of Azkaban than she was when they sent her there - though still haughty and superior.

I think those years in Azkaban - trapped inside her own head - increased her obsession with Voldemort. He becomes even greater in her mind - a savior - and she sees herself as the most loyal to him - the most deserving of his affections. The reward she seeks isn't monetary - she's not looking to have a favor granted or get a prize. The reward she seeks is Voldemort's affections, IMO.

I can see where you're coming from on this, but for me, what makes JKR such a good children's writer, is that she has moral complexity and doesn't shrink from depicting the world as it is - a world which isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters and where most people make a mixture of good and bad choices.

I certainly wouldn't say Merope was a woman whose "morals were not good" and deserved her end. She is depicted as having an awful life even before she did anything wrong, the victim of her "crime" is depicted as being highly morally questionable himself and her actions, though deeply misguided and portrayed as having catastrophic consequences (for others, more than for herself), were taken out of love, not malice. It's hard for me to perceive her story as a simple morality tale, where it's easy to distinguish good from bad.

I agree. It's a fascinating contrast really. Merope starts out as a victim - genetically/psychologically unstable, verbally and physically abused by her father and brother, and she's placed in the role of servant to them because her father sees her as a squib. Her initial attraction to Tom Riddle, Sr. seems innocent enough - a fantasy of the handsome, rich man taking her away from her horrible life.

But Merope stops being a victim when she takes steps to make her fantasy a reality. With her father and brother in Azkaban, she could have left on her own - made a life for herself away from there and she probably would have had a happier ending had she done so. But the fantasy was too appealing - and I would say her love was probably somewhat obsessive as well. So instead of taking advantage of her newfound freedom and forging a new life on her own, she resorts to trickery and manipulation - using magic to bind Riddle to her before leaving and, thereby, making him her victim. There is something to be said for her eventually ceasing to use a potion to manipulate and control him - perhaps she felt it would only be necessary long enough for him to get to know her - but the damage was already done by her using that in the first place and Riddle leaves her. Neither Merope or Tom Riddle Sr. comes across as very sympathetic in the end because they both abandon the child.

I don't see it as a simple morality tale either because there's not much of a lesson in regards to how Voldemort turned out. Had Merope been more stable and not used love potion, then Voldemort would never have been born. Likewise, I can't say Tom Riddle Jr. would have been any better off being raised by these two people if Riddle Sr. had decided to stay with Merope - or being raised by either of them individually if Riddle Sr. had taken him to raise or Merope had found it inside her to live. Neither of them would make particularly good parents, IMO. I think either scenario would most likely have resulted in Voldemort being even worse than he was.

In the end, I see this as more in line with gritty realism - there's not always going to a moral to the tale. Sometimes bad things happen and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Another woman about whom I would like to know more, and whose story raises tough moral questions, is Mrs Crouch. Her actions in springing a convicted Death Eater from jail are arguably morally wrong, certainly against the law and cheat her son's victims of the justice they deserved, and have terrible consequences for others (Cedric Diggory possibly wouldn't be dead, if it weren't for Mrs Crouch). And yet they were motivated by the purest of motives - parental love.

I've always felt that Mrs. Crouch simply believed her son was innocent. Even as they dragged him off to Azkaban, he was proclaiming his innocence and crying out for her. And that was a time when people were being thrown into Azkaban without trial - i.e. Sirius. And this particular trial wasn't held to get to the truth, but to condemn and give Crouch Sr. an opportunity to publicly denounce his son in hopes of deflecting the negative attention his son's actions had brought on him. So I can see where Mrs. Crouch would have been able to convince herself that her son was innocent.

However, I agree that her actions in convincing Crouch to break him out of Azkaban were wrong and they certainly had far reaching negative consequences because Crouch Jr. was not innocent. Her motives might have been pure, but her actions set a chain of events in motion that enabled Voldemort to return to power with Cedric Diggory being killed.

I'm actually more curious about Mr. Crouch in that scenario because I think Mrs. Crouch is pretty straightforward. Mr. Crouch is more ambiguous. He was furious with his son and gave every impression that he believed his son was guilty - from publicly denouncing him as he was carted off to Azkaban to keeping him controlled with the Imperius curse and hiding him with an Invisibility cloak. Obviously, he agreed to do that for his wife - and she was dying - but it seems very odd to me that he would actually go through with it when he believed his son was guilty - and was right.

Then there's Hagrid's mother, whom I touched on in an earlier post. She abandons two children (one of whom, fair enough, has a loving father quite prepared to bring him up - and, indeed, why should it be the mother who brings up the child?- but the other apparently left to fend for himself, merely because she finds him a runt), but seems to be excused from any moral culpability for this by JKR, because it's made clear that maternal feelings are just not in a giant's nature. Where's the morality tale ending in that?

I find this whole story a bit weird and full of potential contradictions (if humans and giants are really that different, and giants the violent brutes that they appear from Hagrid's descriptions, how on earth did the Hagrids Snr meet and fall in love in the first place?). I would so like to read an account of the Hagrids' marriage and where it all went wrong from Mrs Hagrid's perspective! And I dislike the implication that only giant women are absolved from the imperative to be loyal wives and mothers if they are to escape moral censure. But I can't see her story fitting into a straightforward "Good people have happy endings and bad people always get their comeuppance" moral scheme.

I don't think Hagrid's mother is excused completely. Giants were shown to be vicious and she wasn't very maternal, but there's still the fact that she had two kids and abandoned them. Not being very maternal would explain a mother having some emotional distance - Fridwulfa just leaves all together. And her reasons for leaving didn't have much to do with her being maternal - it was more that she was embarrassed about having "small" children rather than full size giants. So I think there is still some culpability presented.

It does make you wonder how she ended up with Hagrid's father, but I can also see why Jo really didn't get into that. It's never actually stated in the text that Hagrid's parents were married as far as I recall. So there are a lot of possible scenarios there - and they're not really "family friendly" if you want to get technical because it seems to me that was not a situation of a giant and human falling in love and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. At least not for both parties.

I think Hagrid is a lot like his dad in terms of his personality and I think that's where Hagrid's views on "interestin' creatures" come from. As such, I can see his dad deciding that giants were just misunderstood and wanting to get to know them - falling in love with Fridwulfa. But I don't know if I'd say the reverse is true. It seems more likely to me that Fridwulfa getting pregnant was unintentional and I'm not entirely certain that she actually did marry Hagrid's dad because there was never any mention of divorce - just that she left. So I wonder if it was something like Hagrid's dad attending a giant "party" or celebration of some sort and a little too much mead being passed around or if Fridwulfa was curious about it or maybe just a physical attraction that didn't go any deeper for her. Maybe she stuck around just long enough to see if Hagrid would be a "proper" giant in spite of being half human - maybe Hagrid's dad was able to convince her to stay long enough to instruct him on how to care for a half-giant baby.

I never really saw that as a morality tale either, but rather like Merope, more towards showing that sometimes people make mistakes and they don't always deal with them responsibly. Hagrid had his father and was raised with love. We don't really know what Grawp's experience was. I don't see Fridwulfa being excused completely for abandoning her children for such a shallow reason, but I don't think Jo was trying to teach a moral with that either.

And I don't see Narcissa as ending the series on any more moral a note than she started it. She is prepared to keep the secret that Harry is still alive and sell out her boss Voldemort, in order to protect and/or avenge her own child. How is that particularly different from the attitude she has shown throughout the series, selfishly thinking her own family's needs supersede other people's rights? It seems to me that the only thing that has changed in this situation is Voldemort's treatment of Lucius and Draco - now that he is menacing them, Narcissa is prepared to act against him and ally herself with his enemies, but I don't think she's grown morally at all. Her actions are incidentally better, but her motivation remains the same, AFAISI.

If this is portrayed as her turning "good", then I find it a very dubious message to send out to children about morality - it's "good" to care only about your own family and tread on everyone else to protect them. (This also worries me, though, about JKR's soft-focus portrayal of Mrs Crouch, which seems perilously close to me to be endorsing mothers who protect their murderer sons from the force of the law)

I agree - except about Mrs. Crouch, but I addressed that above so I won't repeat it. But Narcissa is not portrayed as someone who learned a lesson or changed her views in any way, IMO. But I don't think Jo intended for her to either. Again, I would say this is a very realistic view because it is very rare for people to actually change to that degree. A villain might do a good thing because there is a benefit to themselves for doing so, but they're still a villain.

We see that kind of thing in the real world all the time. The police make deals with "small fish" criminals in order to catch the bigger fish. It's not really the best solution to such problems, IMO, but there's not really a better choice. Letting the smaller criminals go is the lesser of two evils. Not everyone who does a good thing has a good reason for doing so. A small criminal making a deal and turning over a bigger criminal - or criminals - is not doing that because it's the right thing to do or even because they care about what that person has done in any way - they're saving themselves - much like Karkaroff did after Voldemort fell the first time. Wealthy businessmen and politicians do "good" deeds to improve their public image - they're not always interested in the deed itself. They're actions might result in some good being done, but their motives are selfish and they don't really care. So I wouldn't consider any of them good people.

Jo presents that viewpoint regarding the Malfoys - particularly when she commented that they "slithered" out of trouble because of what Narcissa did. They deserved to go to Azkaban for their crimes, but the more realistic portrayal of that was that they would be given a free pass there because Narcissa did do something to help Harry even though she really didn't want to. But that doesn't reflect any true change for any of them in regards to their views and beliefs. Really, the best that can be said is that the Malfoys might have learned to be more cautious in who they choose to give their support to because Voldemort turned out to be a bad choice for them. But I don't believe that any of them really changed in terms of their beliefs and values. And I would hope that the Ministry kept a much closer eye on them because their crimes were known at that point.

I see that as very realistic for the most part, but the one thing that bugged me about it was that Narcissa's actions were extended to give a free pass to Lucius and Draco and I really didn't agree with that. Her motives were selfish, but she was the one who took the risk there by lying to Voldemort. Lucius and Draco were still trying to find a way to get back into Voldemort's good graces. So it makes sense for Narcissa to have been given a pass on going to prison, but I think Lucius and Draco should both have been sent to Azkaban because neither of them did anything to earn that pass.

All in all, I don't think Jo was truly trying to write a morality tale because a great deal of it is simply a realistic portrayal of people's actions and the consequences that can result from those choices - both good and bad. There's not always a lesson to be learned. Sometimes it's simply a matter of that's how life is. It's not always fair or just and bad things happen. Sometimes a villain will do a good thing for selfish reasons. Sometimes a good person will do something wrong because they lose their temper or don't see any other way. The world is not divided up into black and white with good always clearly delineated over evil - there are shades of gray and I think Jo did a good job in showing that realistically.

caroliinee

June 1st, 2009, 12:17 am

Seems like some people's answers are similar to mine :)

1. Favourite over-all character?

Aside from Hermione (being she is the lead female role, and we know most about her), it's definitely going to be Luna. Luna is a very interesting character (obviously), she's sweet, but outspoken; she seems content, but she also has troubles. I have a warm spot in my heart for Luna because of all the ridicule she has probably had to go through all of her life. When she says that she likes the D.A. meetings because it's like "having friends", you feel sympathy toward her - and in return immediately like her. Plus with her mother dying. Jo doesn't say much about Luna's relationship with her mother, but I can imagine that they were close, and that her father was also very close to her mother, which means he probably changed a lot after she died. Luna is an awesome character - you feel for her and connect with her.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

I believe people have already said this, but Narcissa Malfoy. We never knew much about Narcissa, until the sixth book (and still, only a little). However, I feel that her heart was never "in" with Voldemort (is she actually a death eater? I can't remember), and probably has a secret hatred toward him after Lucius ends up in Azkaban and the "plans" he has for Draco. Maybe even part of her wishes that her family weren't Death Eaters in the first place so that she could be with her family. You would think all Mom's would fell that way too (Death Eater mom's anyway), but of course there's Bellatrix who would gladly sacrafice her child for Voldemort - which is why Narcissa is in that grey area.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

In all honesty, Minerva McGonagall. Not much is said about her past, which I find would be extremely interesting. It would be nice to know why she is the way she is, why she chose to be an animagus, how she became a teacher. McGonagall is such a strong character (as seen in the fifth book), and she firmly believes in right/wrong. Why is she so strong willed? It'd be nice to know.

Yoana

June 1st, 2009, 12:17 am

I've always seen her as more sinned against than sinning, and, actually, I know I'm going to get rotten tomatoes for saying this, but I find it hard to see her love potion stunt as being really bad. I think Tom Senior is drawn as too much of a caricature in the text (especially in the brief descriptions in GoF) for me to feel any more sympathy for him than I do for Wily Coyote when the Road Runner crushes him with an anvil.

For me, the really bad thing that she does is deciding that life is not worth living without Tom Senior - effectively putting more value on a man than on her son's future or her own self-worth.

I find it hard to blame her for anything, really, even her decision to die. I think it wan't so much her effectively and consciously putting more value on her husband than herself and her son, but that she was positively crushed by his leaving her. I mean, she'd grown up knowing nothing else but abuse and fear. And then Tom Riddle comes along and she comes to feel excitement and happiness - feelings strong enough for her to fight her torpor and fright from her family and leave with him. I tend to believe Dulmbledore's version of the events, and I can't help but feel it must have been a smashing blow to her when she discovered that even Tom, her only ever hope of happiness, and the only thing in her life which has given her any positive emotions, is actually a huge disappointment too. I imagine she must have been ruined, psychologically. I can't blame her for being unable to find it in herself to carry on - it requires strength, will and optimism she probably didn't have, because she had no experience of life to draw them from.

arithmancer

June 1st, 2009, 12:46 am

If this is portrayed as her turning "good", then I find it a very dubious message to send out to children about morality - it's "good" to care only about your own family and tread on everyone else to protect them. (This also worries me, though, about JKR's soft-focus portrayal of Mrs Crouch, which seems perilously close to me to be endorsing mothers who protect their murderer sons from the force of the law)

This is perhaps not the thread for it, but then I am not aware of a better...

I don't think Rowling is saying that Narcissa and Mrs. Crouch are being "good", particularly, I think she is making a broader argument that those actions people who love take out of love, are going to be better than actions taken for gain, or actions taken by someone like Voldemort who does not love at all.

And regarding Narcissa, it would seem to be that her initial favoring of Voldemort likely does involve some calculation that it will bring more wealth of influence to her family. Whereas her later lie to Voldemort, is merely to give herself a chance to reunite with her son.

Kanksha

June 1st, 2009, 9:26 am

I find it hard to blame her for anything, really, even her decision to die. I think it wan't so much her effectively and consciously putting more value on her husband than herself and her son, but that she was positively crushed by his leaving her. I mean, she'd grown up knowing nothing else but abuse and fear. And then Tom Riddle comes along and she comes to feel excitement and happiness - feelings strong enough for her to fight her torpor and fright from her family and leave with him. I tend to believe Dulmbledore's version of the events, and I can't help but feel it must have been a smashing blow to her when she discovered that even Tom, her only ever hope of happiness, and the only thing in her life which has given her any positive emotions, is actually a huge disappointment too. I imagine she must have been ruined, psychologically. I can't blame her for being unable to find it in herself to carry on - it requires strength, will and optimism she probably didn't have, because she had no experience of life to draw them from.

I agree and I also would see her more as victim than as offender. Harry asks Dumbledore this too after learning the story, why didn't she stay alive for her son? And Dumbledore says, "Can you be feeling pity for Voldemort?"
But Merope had never known the life that Lily Evans had, full of love and respect. She just didn't know what a difference her staying alive would have made for her son, she was defeated and she didn't think there was anything worth living for. I guess I really can't see her as a villain at all.

But I am surprised that after everything that had happened, she would choose to name her son after the two men who had been most cruel to her.

Melaszka

June 1st, 2009, 10:53 am

The idea is great, when taken to extremes, it is not, imo. Sure the world is not divided into Order members and Death Eaters. But the flaws of Order members cannot in any way be compared with the "flaws" [sic] of the Death Eaters. Constantly killing, torturing, maiming, threatening and the like is just simply not the same type of "grey" that is characterized by someone having a flaw of loftiness, nagging, unwillingness to listen or general recklessness. The latter can surely cause big problems for a person, but they are simply not on the same level at all as killing and such.

So the idea is all right - evil people like Voldemort may have something positive going on, but to try to equate all people under this ideology is nonsense to me, because morally, Kingsley is just a far better person overall, whatever his faults.

But I think there is also a very powerful sense throughout HP that people can change. There are characters who were in on the torture and killing who later had a change of heart, people who supported the suppression of Muggles for what they thought were "good" reasons who finally saw the error of their ways, and "good" people who turn bad and betray their friends. I just don't think the text supports the idea that a person's morality is fixed and once they've done something evil - that's it, that's their character sunk.

For me, the texts are very much steeped in a Christian Socialist ideology, that we ought to strive to be the best we can and not use our own backgrounds as an excuse, but at the same time, be compassionate to and forgiving of others who do evil after not having the best start in life. And people can have a change of heart and start again with a clean slate. More rejoicing in heaven over one person who repents than over 99 righteous persons who did not need to repent, and all that. But this is moving away from the idea of female characters, as most of the examples I can think of that demonstrate this are male characters.....

This is exactly what I am talking about. To me, the lesson was not that "victims" or "people who show love" have open field day on morally incorrect behavior. If the motivation of "love" sends a person out on a killing spree against innocents - that person is morally wrong, among other things.

Mrs. Crouch's behavior was deplorable - parental love doesn't save her in the least. What happens here is I feel that one gets so caught up in the little highlighted story that they forget the bigger picture. The story in a vaccuum certainly draws Sympathy for Mrs. Crouch (as does Merope's) and her major sacrifice (her life) for her son due to parental love is alone and of itself, besiged with grand messages of valor and wonder. But the big picture is that Mrs. Crouch is sacrificing her life to free her son, when that son was out murdering, torturing and maiming numerous innocents. Those dead victims are not highlighted in the romantic little tale of parental love. If you lose sight of that, then the wrongfulness of Mrs. Crouch's sacrifice is blown out of proportion in the wrong direction, imo. She behaved completely immorally, totally wrongfully and her sacrifice was for a absolutely and totally nefarious purpose, imo. Parental love holds no merit whatsoever in that case, because there are some other parents out there who due to Crouch Jr.'s actions, will never be able to show that type of love to their own children again.

I pretty much agree with you. But I still don't think that's the attitude the text seems to direct the reader to take.

Posted by zgirnius
I don't think Rowling is saying that Narcissa and Mrs. Crouch are being "good", particularly, I think she is making a broader argument that those actions people who love take out of love, are going to be better than actions taken for gain, or actions taken by someone like Voldemort who does not love at all.

I think she probably is making that argument, but it's one I find a bit dubious.

Posted by wickedwickedboy
Merope was a victim and that certainly draws and deserves sympathy. However, she then went on to make a victim out of Tom senior. All her trauma and heartache growing up does not give her open field day to make victims out of others. She behaved in a completely nefarious manner in feeding a muggle love potion and seducing him. Then when he "woke up" and left and she found herself with child, she killed herself and left her child an orphan. Everything about that is selfish and again, being a complete victim does not give her open field day on innocent babies, especially her own. If she was medically determined to be medically unfit, that is distinct, but the way the story is told, with her losing her magic and all, she simply whithered away due to circumstance into a state of self-pity and despair. Perhaps that is a medical condition - in which case some of her culpability is lessened, but the canon didn't appear to present it as such. Nonetheless, what came from Merope's version of "life" was the total ruination of a family (Riddle Senior's)and ruination of her son.

But that seems to be absolving Voldemort of responsibility. If you're saying that Merope is entirely responsible for Voldemort's evil personality and his murder of the Riddle family, surely you're applying double standards here? Merope's victimhood doesn't excuse her actions at all, but Voldemort's victimhood means that the responsibility for his crimes is foisted onto his mother?

While not condoning Merope's use of a love potion, I don't think the long-term consequences on the Riddles were so great. Riddle Senior escaped from his marriage angry, bewildered and frightened, but was subsequently able to move on and get on with the rest of his life (until Voldemort killed him, of course! And IMO, that's Voldemort's problem, not Merope's), with no financial or emotional ties to his son. By contrast, Merope herself ends up poor, distraught and dead.

Furthermore, the Riddle are not innocents - the text makes it quite clear that the Riddles were unpleasant, snobbish people who oppressed their tenants and neighbours where they could. After their murder, nobody in the text is sorry they're dead. To an extent, I think JKR portrays Tom Snr's potioning and the family's murder as poetic justice.

JKR played the 'victim' card quite a lot in HP series for numerous characters. Merope and Mrs. Crouch are just two of many, including the hero of the tale. But if JKR actually hoped to send a message in that regard, then she wasn't understanding that there are those who feel very strongly about victim's rights. Meaning, that she totally wins when it comes to the portrayal (they are victims after all) - but to go on and show them victimize others, in this type of dastardly way, kills the entire idea. The new message is that victims will make victims out of others (unless they happened to be named Harry or Neville).

There is a difference with Harry and Neville - they were born into happy marriages and were deeply loved by their parents, even though they were cruelly deprived of those parents very young. JKR presents that as being the key shaping factor in their personalities, so those exceptions, to me, reinforce (not undermine) the message she sends out that the family environment the perpetrator enjoyed in childhood explains (and to an extent mitigates) their later crimes.

And that the original sympathy should play some role in the judgment against these offenders who were victimized, lessening the harshness of our judgment. But it can't work that way - one cannot justify victimization on the fact that the new offender was herself victimized (usually by another). The offender who was victimized has learned nothing from their previous horrific experience and their victimized state, except that they must pass that same horror on to others. That does happen in real life, but if we allow it to serve as a mitigating factor, then we lessen the horror of the subsequent victimization, imo. Secondary victims, usually innocent or at minimal undeserving (Tom Sr. was not required to love Merope for instance), deserve the same amount of sympathy as the victimized offender originally got, but it never works out that way. There is very little, if any sympathy going around for Tom Riddle, Sr., imo, it is reserved for Merope, still based on her original victimization as the justification for her subsequent bad acts. This is made worse because Tom was rich and attractive - if he'd been poor with unnotable looks, and his background included being tortured by his parents, perhaps he'd get a little more focus - but I wouldn't count on it. Generally, the focus remains on the offender who was victimized sometime in the past because it explains the more recent offenses.

I don't think it's Tom's wealth, attractiveness or the fact that he didn't have a miserable childhood that deters sympathy. It's his snobbery and the fact that he appears to believe that his wealth gives him the right to treat others like dirt (his somewhat Marie Antoinettish girlfriend thinks that the Gaunts' home should be pulled down because it spoils her pretty view - without sparing a thought for the rights of the people who live there. Now there's an unpleasant female character! And Tom doesn't seem to disagree, he merely notes with disappointment that, oddly, these unsightly peasants seem to own their house, so he can't bulldoze it.) I think we're intended to infer that there's a reason the entire village hates him.

And, of course, as I said earlier, the fact that he's sketched, not fully drawn (in his one big scene in the series, in HBP, he for the most part appears only as a disembodied voice, heard through a window) also prevents me from having that much sympathy for him. One of the big differences between literature and real life, IMO, is that in literature, it's OK to not care that much about someone's fate if you've not really had much contact with them, or they're just sketched generics (fans of Jasper Fforde may be recalling agents Kannon and Phodder and Lamb and Slaughter at this point).

So while I agree that, if Merope had been a real life character, her impact on Riddle's life would have been devastating, I think the way it is presented in the books minimises its seriousness.

Posted by meesha1971
But Merope stops being a victim when she takes steps to make her fantasy a reality. With her father and brother in Azkaban, she could have left on her own - made a life for herself away from there and she probably would have had a happier ending had she done so. But the fantasy was too appealing - and I would say her love was probably somewhat obsessive as well. So instead of taking advantage of her newfound freedom and forging a new life on her own, she resorts to trickery and manipulation - using magic to bind Riddle to her before leaving and, thereby, making him her victim.

Yes! That's what I find most frustrating and tragic about her story - the way she outwits her father and brother and plans meticulously to win Riddle shows that she has determination, resourcefulness and far greater magical powers than her family realised (and Voldemort must have inherited his exceptional magical powers from someone, and it certainly wasn't his dad, so I think his powers give a hint of what calibre of witch Merope could have been). She could have done so much with her life if she'd set her sights on something more productive than just "getting a guy".

(I know I'm going off into treating the characters as real people, but imagine how different things could have been if Merope had gone to Hogwarts and had her talents nurtured and her confidence built up. I assume from her heritage and from the cunning with which she potions Riddle that she would have been sorted into Slytherin - had Slughorn been her housemaster, he would probably have made a fuss of her, because of her "famous" background, and she would have experienced the attention she so lacked at home).

There is something to be said for her eventually ceasing to use a potion to manipulate and control him - perhaps she felt it would only be necessary long enough for him to get to know her - but the damage was already done by her using that in the first place and Riddle leaves her.

Yes, she does do the right thing in the end. That's a point in her favour.

But it also further challenges simplistic fairy tale morality. Had she carried on potioning Riddle, doing the wrong thing, things might have turned out better for everybody. Not much of a cautionary tale there.

Neither Merope or Tom Riddle Sr. comes across as very sympathetic in the end because they both abandon the child.

IMO, Merope doesn't exactly abandon him. She sells her possessions to provide for him for as long as she can and then makes sure he is in a place where he will be fed and clothed.

I don't see it as a simple morality tale either because there's not much of a lesson in regards to how Voldemort turned out. Had Merope been more stable and not used love potion, then Voldemort would never have been born. Likewise, I can't say Tom Riddle Jr. would have been any better off being raised by these two people if Riddle Sr. had decided to stay with Merope - or being raised by either of them individually if Riddle Sr. had taken him to raise or Merope had found it inside her to live. Neither of them would make particularly good parents, IMO. I think either scenario would most likely have resulted in Voldemort being even worse than he was.

That's a really good point.

In the end, I see this as more in line with gritty realism - there's not always going to a moral to the tale. Sometimes bad things happen and there's nothing that can be done about it.

:tu:

Posted by Yoana
I find it hard to blame her for anything, really, even her decision to die. I think it wan't so much her effectively and consciously putting more value on her husband than herself and her son, but that she was positively crushed by his leaving her. I mean, she'd grown up knowing nothing else but abuse and fear. And then Tom Riddle comes along and she comes to feel excitement and happiness - feelings strong enough for her to fight her torpor and fright from her family and leave with him. I tend to believe Dulmbledore's version of the events, and I can't help but feel it must have been a smashing blow to her when she discovered that even Tom, her only ever hope of happiness, and the only thing in her life which has given her any positive emotions, is actually a huge disappointment too. I imagine she must have been ruined, psychologically.

Yes, I probably worded it too strongly. I don't so much "blame" her as feel incredibly sad for her that she didn't value herself more. In truth, she doesn't seem to know the value of anything - I've often thought that her selling her priceless locket to Burke for a pittance is symbolic of how she overwhelmingly underestimates her own value.

Posted by Kanksha
But I am surprised that after everything that had happened, she would choose to name her son after the two men who had been most cruel to her.

For me, confirmation that she has internalised the attitudes of patriarchal superiority of her abusers. In a sense, perhaps Voldemort ought to be viewed as feminist icon, as he emphatically rejects his patriarchal names :lol:

I've still got lots to say about meesha's brilliant points on Mrs Crouch, Narcissa and Fridwulfa (I'd forgotten that was her name - excellent!), but this is a long post already, so I'll come back.

I'm loving this thread, btw.

hestiajones

June 1st, 2009, 11:43 am

1. Favourite over-all character?
Hermione. She is brave, fiercely loyal, amazingly talented and has a sense of humor that is quite hard to beat (unless you are Ron and don’t know when you have lost a verbal duel lol). I find her a very good role model. So what if she cries often? It is just a way of expressing her frustration. It doesn’t make her any less braver.

2. Favourite character on the side of the dark?
Umbridge. She is by far the most fascinating (if I may use such a word) villain I have ever come across in a book. I find her more unbearable and scarier than Voldemort himself. In fact, you could call her, and not Bellatrix, the female equivalent of Voldemort. Bellatrix was cruel and powerful, no doubt. But she did not have that gift of cunning, deceptiveness, manipulativeness (eek! What a word) and self-centered ambition that Umbridge had.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Narcissa seems interesting, no doubt. But other than the fact that she was supportive of Voldemort at first and that she loved her family more than that, I would find her a pretty dull and infuriating person.
Minerva McGonagoll is what Hermione would have been if she had not met Harry and Ron. Or Krum.

No, the female character that I’d like to know more about is Andromeda Tonks. Maybe it seems like a silly choice. But I found her as brave as Sirius- marrying a muggle-born like that when she had sisters like Bella and Cissy. Plus she lost her husband, cousin, daughter as well as son-in-law in the war. Yet she seems strong enough to overcome all that and be a mother-figure to Ted.

Trixa

June 1st, 2009, 12:29 pm

Melaszka

June 1st, 2009, 2:49 pm

I don't think Hagrid's mother is excused completely. Giants were shown to be vicious and she wasn't very maternal, but there's still the fact that she had two kids and abandoned them. Not being very maternal would explain a mother having some emotional distance - Fridwulfa just leaves all together. And her reasons for leaving didn't have much to do with her being maternal - it was more that she was embarrassed about having "small" children rather than full size giants. So I think there is still some culpability presented.

But her conduct is still depicted as being normal and "moral" according to the societal viewpoint of her own culture. And Hagrid himself seems remarkably forgiving and accepting of her behaviour.

It does make you wonder how she ended up with Hagrid's father, but I can also see why Jo really didn't get into that. It's never actually stated in the text that Hagrid's parents were married as far as I recall. So there are a lot of possible scenarios there - and they're not really "family friendly" if you want to get technical because it seems to me that was not a situation of a giant and human falling in love and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. At least not for both parties

Good point! I kind of assumed they were married because couples with children in family-friendly HP usually are, but you're right, it may be highly significant when JKR doesn't specify whether a couple were married or not.

I think Hagrid is a lot like his dad in terms of his personality and I think that's where Hagrid's views on "interestin' creatures" come from. As such, I can see his dad deciding that giants were just misunderstood and wanting to get to know them - falling in love with Fridwulfa.

Excellent point.

But I don't know if I'd say the reverse is true. It seems more likely to me that Fridwulfa getting pregnant was unintentional and I'm not entirely certain that she actually did marry Hagrid's dad because there was never any mention of divorce - just that she left. So I wonder if it was something like Hagrid's dad attending a giant "party" or celebration of some sort and a little too much mead being passed around or if Fridwulfa was curious about it or maybe just a physical attraction that didn't go any deeper for her. Maybe she stuck around just long enough to see if Hagrid would be a "proper" giant in spite of being half human - maybe Hagrid's dad was able to convince her to stay long enough to instruct him on how to care for a half-giant baby.

Interesting ideas, well-reasoned from what we do know. I'd just so love to know more about her and what went on there.

I never really saw that as a morality tale either, but rather like Merope, more towards showing that sometimes people make mistakes and they don't always deal with them responsibly. Hagrid had his father and was raised with love. We don't really know what Grawp's experience was. I don't see Fridwulfa being excused completely for abandoning her children for such a shallow reason

Thing is, I don't know that it is a shallow reason, if you are a giant. I'm fascinated by historic cultures that had totally different moral codes to the ones I'm used to (I love having to get my head around how they could possibly perceived things which, to me, are unquestionably wrong, as not just tolerable but positively admirable). I loved the all-too-brief glimpses we got of goblin, centaur and giant cultures in CoS and I'd have liked to know more about what made them tick - so that's one of my reasons for wanting to know more about Hagrid's mum.

And also, kudos to Molly, I think she's a great female role model, but there is a lot of idealisation of the maternal in HP and I would have liked to know more about Fridwulfa because she's one of the few actively unmaternal women we see who are not portrayed as psychopaths!

Plus she's got a cool Anglo-Saxon name.

but I don't think Jo was trying to teach a moral with that either.

Agreed. At most, I think she uses Fridwulfa and Grawp as devices to develop Hagrid's character, to show his forgiving, generous-hearted, optimistic nature

I've always felt that Mrs. Crouch simply believed her son was innocent. Even as they dragged him off to Azkaban, he was proclaiming his innocence and crying out for her. And that was a time when people were being thrown into Azkaban without trial - i.e. Sirius. And this particular trial wasn't held to get to the truth, but to condemn and give Crouch Sr. an opportunity to publicly denounce his son in hopes of deflecting the negative attention his son's actions had brought on him. So I can see where Mrs. Crouch would have been able to convince herself that her son was innocent.

Also very true. I still think she is somewhat blinkered in not even being open to the possibility that her son might be guilty (particularly as he seems to make Bellatrix look like a lightweight when it comes to OTT, upfront, obsessive, unswerving dedication to the Dark Lord - could she really not have noticed that?).

Mr Crouch is interesting and his story does raise some surprising moral questions, but I guess that's one for another thread.

Posted by Trixa
That's what I find a bit unrealistic actually. I mean, if you are into killing and torturing can you really be a good guy/girl afterwards? Change of hearts rarely occur in evil people. If you think torture and killing of innocents is okay, then you are evil. No shades of grey there, in my opinion.

I don't know. Again, with Narcissa there's a bit of a cultural thing going on - she has been raised from birth to view Muggles as vermin and wizards and witches who fraternise with them as traitors. I imagine she genuinely believes that Arthur Weasley is the immoral one, not her. I think she and Bellatrix are, in a way, true to their own concept of morality, for which, in a perverse kind of way, I respect them.

I can believe that maybe, one day, Narcissa would come to understand that her actions and allegiances in early life were wrong, although I totally agree with you that that doesn't happen at the end of DH - she merely realises that Voldemort is a bigger threat to her husband and son than the Order are. In my book, though, that puts her on a similar moral footing to Regulus. And perhaps, in the years after the end of the war, if she were a real person, not a literary character, she might find that once the Voldemort thread had unravelled, the whole Pureblood,anti-Muggle tapestry would fall apart.

wickedwickedboy

June 1st, 2009, 2:56 pm

PerfectDystopia

June 1st, 2009, 10:30 pm

Great thread!

1. Favourite over-all character?
My favorite character is probably Bellatrix, but there are many other close seconds. I really admire Professor McGonagall. Though she might be a somewhat archtype, I like how she is intelligent and stern and just. I really think she is well-rounded character, and she really holds up to being a good teacher and a dedicated member of the OotP.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
dark side- Bellatrix. I have some gripes about her, but for the most part, I really do love her. She was probably the only high-ranking female death eater in what seemed a male dominated heirarchy, so I do imagine she worked hard to get to where she was at (basically Voldemort's right hand). And think she was such a breath of fresh air from all the matron characters in the story. Call me whatever you want, but I love her " If I had sons, I would be glad to give them up to the services of the Dark Lord!" By all accounts, I will admit it is a pretty messed up line, but the fact she breaks the whole "good mother" default thing going in the series makes me love her.

grey side- Merope Gaunt. (I am happy to see that I am not the only person in this thread who likes her ). I know we don't know much about Merope, but I still find her a fascinating character. Her character and her backstory tell so much, even she doesn't get much pagetime. While I have mixed feeling about feminist comments about the series, I think Merope Gaunt is one character deserves to be looked at through many viewpoints, especially a feminist one. I was so appalled when Harry said "She wouldn't even stay alive for her son?" and then Dumbledore responded with " Yes, Merope Gaunt died in spite of of a son who needed her, but do not judge her harshly, Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering and neve had your mother's courage."(I think I literally dropped the book when I read that). I seriously wanted to yell when I read that. Here's a woman who was born from inbreeding, clearly severely abused, grew up in a violent enviorment, and had no companionship (Merope might as well been a feral child). Where does Harry get off thinking that she was obligated to live for her son and where does Dumbledore get off comparing someone like Merope to Lily Potter? What do Harry and Dumbledore know about Merope, and who are they to judge her like that? But at the same, I have no qualms considering Merope Gaunt a rapist. Even though Tom Riddle Sr. might have been unpleasant person, I don't think he deserved to be raped. I am very conflicted whethe r or not her upbringing can justify what she did. Merope Gaunt raises many ethical questions, and that's why I really like her.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Walburga Black. I don't think she was mad in person as she was in her portrait, but even if she was, I would still be interested in her. I like how she breaks the "good mother" default, but is still close to one of her sons. And the fact she was at Hogwarts around the Tom Riddle was also is very interesting to me. The similarities in their opinion of muggles and muggleborns brings up the likely possibility that they were acquainted, which could lead to interesting revelations about Walburga.

arithmancer

June 2nd, 2009, 3:19 am

While not condoning Merope's use of a love potion, I don't think the long-term consequences on the Riddles were so great. Riddle Senior escaped from his marriage angry, bewildered and frightened, but was subsequently able to move on and get on with the rest of his life (until Voldemort killed him, of course! And IMO, that's Voldemort's problem, not Merope's), with no financial or emotional ties to his son.

Tom, Sr. did not really "get on with the rest of his life". He had a sweetheart (however snobbish we might find both her and him), and it appears he never married her or anyone else.

In truth, she doesn't seem to know the value of anything - I've often thought that her selling her priceless locket to Burke for a pittance is symbolic of how she overwhelmingly underestimates her own value.

:tu: A really nice way of looking at it!

Melaszka

June 2nd, 2009, 10:49 am

But this type of individual was not portrayed through Merope. She killed herself in canon after undertaking an act against Tom Riddle, Sr. and that was her entire outcome. So I don't see how this principal applies to her. The fact that people can change is to celebrate that change when it occurs, not celebrate those who don't change because they could have, imo.

Yes, I acknowledged that this point was off-topic when I made it and that it applies more to some male characters in the series than Merope or the other females. The corollary of this which is, however, germane to this argument is that, in general, JKR rarely deals in characters who are wholly good or wholly evil - she does appear to take a broadly optimistic and compassionate view of the human condition, and I would argue that that view ought to be extended to Merope.

He (and his entire family) was completely duped by a wizard into marriage

A marriage which he escaped from after about a year. He subsequently had 15+ years of life without Merope. His experience was no doubt distressing and I don't want to underestimate that, but it was only one year out of around 40, so I can't see it as having destroyed his life. I'm assuming that the "His entire family" bit refers only to the murder, because I can't see how else Merope's actions affected them.

and ultimately killed by the child she manipulated and deceived him into providing her with and he had no great long term consequences?

Merope is not responsible for what Voldemort did. I don't, therefore, believe that the Riddles' murders are "consequences" which can be laid at Merope's door.

If you apply that canon wide, would you continue to agree with yourself? Perhaps you would, but I think it is easy to apply this to characters one doesn't like and more difficult to apply it to those they do.

If this is a veiled Snape dig, I'm not reacting :p

I agree in literature this type of person is often knocked off in a form of poetic justice, but it is not to be construed as proper or appropriate, imo. I didn't get the idea that the Riddles oppressed their neighbors, but perhaps there is text I do not recall. Merope was in love with Tom though, whatever his faults - if he were an evil tyrant, I think I'd recall that incongruency (her falling for one who was oppressing her).

For me, his faults makes her tragedy all the more poignant - she throws herself away on, and destroys her own life for, a man who is manifestly not worth having in the first place.

I agree that there is no overt text about oppressing neighbours. However, reading between the lines of Riddle's and Cecilia's dialogue, it seems clear that Riddle feels his father's ownership of the surrounding land means he can treat his tenants as he sees fit, even if it means destroying their homes on an aesthetic whim. And, as I said, I think we're supposed to infer that there are very good reasons why the neighbours don't care he's dead.

Well I understand what you are saying. But again, I cannot overlook his victimization and focus on Merope's, when she was Tom's offender. Merope was acting out of being in love, not out of hating Tom for something he'd done to her - this was not revenge.

I know it's not revenge - that's why I said "poetic justice". It's a staple of folk stories that unpleasant people come to an unfortunate end, often by accident or as victims of a completely unrelated crime. This is presented as a kind of karmic justice. And that is how I view Riddle's end.

I understand that - and actually that translates to real life. Victims are often all but forgotten in the concentration on the offender - it is a huge legal debate at present.

That, IMO, is a completely separate issue. Please don't misrepresent my attitude to Riddle as a dismissal of victims' rights in RL.

My point was that fictional events and characters cannot always be judged in the same way as those in real life and the attitudes which consumers of fiction have to those characters do not necessarily reflect their levels of compassion in RL. (e.g. In RL, no person with any compassion or decency would laugh at someone being run over by a steamroller or having an anvil dropped on their head, but these are running jokes in children's cartoons.) If Riddle were a real life person, I would agree with you wholeheartedly that his rights and feelings should not be lightly dismissed, but he isn't.

I am a fervent proponent of victim's rights (including dead victims) so I probably have a slightly distinct focus while looking at little tales like Merope's. JKR cannot draw sympathy from me for her ultimately because her deeds do not go unforgotten, no matter how many faults she places on Merope's victim. If he was a "Voldemort" that would of course be different, but he wasn't painted that way, imo.

I've got my own RL experience, in a relatively small way, of having been a victim of someone who himself had an abusive childhood, so I have some insight into how injust and devastating it can seem when the system seems to take the side of the abuser and give more compassion to him/her than his/her victim.

However, even in RL, I don't think compassion for victims and compassion for perpetrators, where their childhood background clearly had an influence on their subsequent behaviour, are necessarily mutually exclusive.

For me, Merope's upbringing meant she had no clear understanding that what what she was doing was wrong and it seems that she did not intentionally do harm to Tom - as you yourself have noted, she loved him. I can't judge her as I would someone who had been brought up with a clear moral code and who chose to ignore it, or someone who had potioned Tom out of malice and a desire to humiliate him. That doesn't mean her crimes can be ignored, but nor do I think that her motive and social background are completely irrelevant.

If this were RL, I'd have compassion for both Tom and Merope. As it isn't, and we're given great detail about Merope's background and psychology, while Tom is a bit two-dimensionally drawn, with all the focus on his negative qualities and none on the good, my sympathies are with Merope.

I disagree. Tom was the father of the main antagonist in the story. Just as Merope is the mother. Why her side of things would be more "serious" I do not understand. Her impact on Tom Sr. to me, is as serious as her family's impact on her, or Tom and Merope's impact on Voldemort, etc. I kind of see what you are trying to say - that it was written in a way that might help the reader shrug it off if they want, but shrugging off an "idea" is a choice in the end, imo.

IMO, where a character is sketched, not developed, there's little point imagining a set of feelings or life consequences that the author hasn't given us. She's depicted Tom as a snob, part of a ruling class which uses their position to accrue unfair advantages, hated by everyone within a five-mile radius, and chosen to give him no redeeming features whatsoever.

I guess I just have a totally different view. I blame her totally for the devastation she caused - just as I blame her family for that which they caused her. I just don't feel she merits any sympathy in the big picture because of her grevious wrong. As I said, having been a victim does not give Merope the right to have open field day on victmizing others, imo.

If that's how it had been presented - Merope consciously thinking, "Right, I've got a Get Out Of Jail Free card. Now, who can I go and abuse?" - I'd agree with you. Recognising that some people are so damaged by their upbringing that they are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong and/or of controlling their actions is not the same as giving them "open field day".

Posted by zgirnius
Tom, Sr. did not really "get on with the rest of his life". He had a sweetheart (however snobbish we might find both her and him), and it appears he never married her or anyone else.

Well spotted. Good point.

However, I don't think this necessarily means he didn't "get on with the rest of his life". Perhaps he lost Cecilia as a result of his marriage, perhaps his experience with Merope put him off women for life, perhaps his relationship with Cecilia was a shallow one that would have broken up, anyway - I don't think we are given enough information to draw firm conclusions.

But being married and having a life are not synonymous. It is perfectly possible to have a happy and fulfilling life without ever marrying.

My other favourite female character: Augusta Longbottom. The way she puts a DE in St Mungo's in DH is awesome.

wickedwickedboy

June 2nd, 2009, 12:17 pm

Yes, I acknowledged that this point was off-topic when I made it and that it applies more to some male characters in the series than Merope or the other females. The corollary of this which is, however, germane to this argument is that, in general, JKR rarely deals in characters who are wholly good or wholly evil - she does appear to take a broadly optimistic and compassionate view of the human condition, and I would argue that that view ought to be extended to Merope.

I still say it depends on the reader's perception based on the writing. Was it a broad and optimistic compassionate view - or were facts just provided that would allow for that view and other views as well? The human condition does after all, extend to Tom.

If this is a veiled Snape dig, I'm not reacting :p

Not at all. This applies storywide in my opinion and to keep on topic one can consider Ginny. Many seem to take a rather strong dislike of her characterization and construe her as behaving in an unplesant, snobbish and even oppressive manner. For them, perhaps it would be poetic justice if she had been summarily killed by a DE, but others wouldn't see it that way at all.

That is my point - JKR's rendering of facts pertaining to Tom Riddle is going to be seen in a varying light by different readers. You and I prove that - because I didn't see his words and social status as indicative of a total characterization. This was Voldy's dad, the man whose bones he dug up and used in a macabre magical experiment - a man he belittled in the books without really knowing at all. And throughout I continued to think of him as a muggle duped by the wizard world and ultimately killed at its hands. Tom Sr.'s story is not limited to his role as a pawn in Merope's tale, imo. So I didn't construe him as merely an unpleasant snob who got his just results via karma or poetic justice. I wouldn't view Ginny that way either if she'd been killed, but some would. I would however, agree that certain types of characters tend to be knocked off in canon, but I disagree that everyone would regard them in the same light.

For me, his faults makes her tragedy all the more poignant - she throws herself away on, and destroys her own life for, a man who is manifestly not worth having in the first place.

That sounds as correct to me as this: Tom was duped and ultimately died due to his interaction with a woman who was manifestly worthless as a human being in the wizard world in the first place. Both statements come across to me as devaluing humanity, so I wouldn't be able to agree with either. (And don't take that to mean I feel you devalue humanity :lol:. I know you are confining your statement to this particular fictional account)

I agree that there is no overt text about oppressing neighbours. However, reading between the lines of Riddle's and Cecilia's dialogue, it seems clear that Riddle feels his father's ownership of the surrounding land means he can treat his tenants as he sees fit, even if it means destroying their homes on an aesthetic whim. And, as I said, I think we're supposed to infer that there are very good reasons why the neighbours don't care he's dead.

But what has that got to do with a reader's ultimate take on Tom? We are supposed to be as cut throat and uncaring as the neighbors while reading? I respect your view on that, but I didn't read this literature tale that way. I would if the character was just a "name" in the story, but as I have explained, Tom Sr. was more than just a "name" in this particular tale, imo.

I know it's not revenge - that's why I said "poetic justice". It's a staple of folk stories that unpleasant people come to an unfortunate end, often by accident or as victims of a completely unrelated crime. This is presented as a kind of karmic justice. And that is how I view Riddle's end.

I do understand what you are saying - but this I addressed above. I feel strongly that it is based on reader perception. You and I likely have a host of various characters we believe received poetic justice and others we feel were greatly wronged by the end they were given, and we may disagree on which fall into which category in each case. That is my point. I don't feel the same about Riddle's end - and I don't feel the same about Merope as a consequence.

That, IMO, is a completely separate issue. Please don't misrepresent my attitude to Riddle as a dismissal of victims' rights in RL.

Ah, that is not what I meant at all. I was merely pointing out my particular frame of reference in looking at this in a manner similar to real life - just as you did in indicating that you look at the two issues distinctly. I am very aware that you would not view it the same way in real life - that is what you said. I was only speaking about myself in how I read this particular literary tale.

My point was that fictional events and characters cannot always be judged in the same way as those in real life and the attitudes which consumers of fiction have to those characters do not necessarily reflect their levels of compassion in RL. (e.g. In RL, no person with any compassion or decency would laugh at someone being run over by a steamroller or having an anvil dropped on their head, but these are running jokes in children's cartoons.) If Riddle were a real life person, I would agree with you wholeheartedly that his rights and feelings should not be lightly dismissed, but he isn't.

Right, I understand how you view this. I wasn't trying to belittle your viewpoint, I think it is representative of the way many view literature - including myself at times for certain situations/characterizations. But I just don't read the Merope/Tom situation in the same way you do. I think the distinction is that I don't see him drawn quite as two dimensionally as you.

Where I read literature similar to what I think you are indicating is like in the situation where we were told that Lily was crying over two victims of Voldemort. They were just names and so my total attention was upon Lily and her sorrow, not toward the "names". But I feel in the case of Merope, we have much more canon about her victim, Tom Sr., and his life/outcome in the wake of his interaction with her, as instigated by her. Do you see what I mean?

For me, Merope's upbringing meant she had no clear understanding that what what she was doing was wrong and it seems that she did not intentionally do harm to Tom - as you yourself have noted, she loved him. I can't judge her as I would someone who had been brought up with a clear moral code and who chose to ignore it, or someone who had potioned Tom out of malice and a desire to humiliate him. That doesn't mean her crimes can be ignored, but nor do I think that her motive and social background are completely irrelevant.

I think we discussed this before in relation to something else. It isn't that I disagree with you about Merope. But I look at Tom Sr. the same way. He was raised to be an unpleasant snob because his parents taught him that he and his family were better than those living around them. He spoke of his father's views, so we know that this is not something Tom Sr. just woke up feeling one morning. His moral code was horrible from an objective perspective and that is what he was raised with. He didn't ignore his upbringing anymore than Merope did, imo. And similar to Merope, he had no understanding of what was happening to him either when she gave him the potion - imagine waking up and finding yourself married to Merope? He was probably out of his mind and he acted upon those feelings. Merope, as you indicated above, similarly reacted to her upbringing and to the situation she found herself in. But in this particular scenario, it was Merope who instigated the grave wrong against Tom, imo.

If this were RL, I'd have compassion for both Tom and Merope. As it isn't, and we're given great detail about Merope's background and psychology, while Tom is a bit two-dimensionally drawn, with all the focus on his negative qualities and none on the good, my sympathies are with Merope.

I know - I'm sorry if I made it sound like I thought differently. I didn't at all. I know you were confining your thoughts to fictional literature and to this particular situation. :) That was honestly all about my own personal frame of reference.

IMO, where a character is sketched, not developed, there's little point imagining a set of feelings or life consequences that the author hasn't given us. She's depicted Tom as a snob, part of a ruling class which uses their position to accrue unfair advantages, hated by everyone within a five-mile radius, and chosen to give him no redeeming features whatsoever.

Well I respect your view. I just didn't see it that way. I guess I just don't buy into the idea that rich, snobs in the ruling class are all 'bad guys' - and automatically assume that they were taking unfair advantage and oppressing others (which is very likely where I would fall off the wagon if JKR made the assumption that all her readers would see it that way). My experience is that many will prejudge those in that class and hate them per se without ever knowing anything about them except surface stuff. As I felt Merope loved him based only on surface stuff. So I still saw him as innocent of anything that would merit all he had to endure as a result of Merope's interaction with him. I mean not only did the dude end up with Merope for a time, he was later killed with all in the house, his bones dug up and used, his home turned into the den of a dark lord with the remaining caretaker killed, he didn't marry his sweetheart - and likely no one from his 'class' wanted anything to do with him marriage wise after his fiasco of a marriage to Merope (as they would see it) and Tom Sr. was belittled throughout the story by Voldy - without, to my knowledge, having done more than be a normal member of his class in a place and at a time where that was the norm and having been tricked and duped by a witch from the wizard world he wasn't aware existed.

If that's how it had been presented - Merope consciously thinking, "Right, I've got a Get Out Of Jail Free card. Now, who can I go and abuse?" - I'd agree with you. Recognising that some people are so damaged by their upbringing that they are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong and/or of controlling their actions is not the same as giving them "open field day".

Right, I understand where you are coming from. But again, I was explaning my view. I don't think Merope was thinking that way at all - she acted out of love, we agree. My point is that you don't act that way out of love. The same is true of Voldy; you don't act the way he did either, and he also had a horrible, sympathy inducing background. But I have far more sympathy for the caretaker when he was killed than for Voldemort when he was killed. And I have far more sympathy for Tom Sr. than for Merope based on the circumstances between them.

As you indicated, from your point of view, Merope is not responsible for what Voldemort did, and to an extent, I agree. However, Merope is responsible for placing Tom Sr. in the position he was in - and all of the bad stuff that happened to him was a result of that, so in that way she is responsible, imo. Just as her family is not responsible for her feeding Tom love potion, but they are responsibile for placing her in a position to where she would do such a thing, imo. Her family likely had their sympathetic background story too that led them to treat her that way - but chasing back in that way to mitigate for wrongs will eventally lead us to Adam and Eve or the big bang as holding all the responsibility for every act in the world, if you know what I mean. :lol:.

Yoana

June 2nd, 2009, 1:13 pm

Not at all. This applies storywide in my opinion and to keep on topic one can consider Ginny. Many seem to take a rather strong dislike of her characterization and construe her as behaving in an unplesant, snobbish and even oppressive manner. For them, perhaps it would be poetic justice if she had been summarily killed by a DE, but others wouldn't see it that way at all.

Um, what? I doubt any of us are that extreme... I dislike Ginny heartily, because she's a failure of a character, in my opinion. But I certainly wouldn't want to see her killed by a Death Eater. I don't see how that would achieve anything, literarily - justice or believability. Now, as for her being completely re-written... :whistle:

wickedwickedboy

June 2nd, 2009, 1:29 pm

Um, what? I doubt any of us are that extreme... I dislike Ginny heartily, because she's a failure of a character, in my opinion. But I certainly wouldn't want to see her killed by a Death Eater. I don't see how that would achieve anything, literarily - justice or believability. Now, as for her being completely re-written... :whistle:

Well that is what I mean. All readers see things distinctly, but I see Tom senior in the way you describe I guess. I didn't see his end as poetic justice and therefore focus my sympathy upon Merope. I wouldn't want Tom Sr. as a mate based on his description, so if that fails him as a character, so be it, but I don't think he was deserving of what Merope did to him, or of the position she placed him in which led to his final sad end. As I have said, if he had been billed as Voldemort the first, then my view would differ, but he wasn't cast in that position in the storyline, imo.

Poetic Justice doesn't have to include wishing for a bad outcome for someone. It can just be the 'outcome' that one feels is merited after the author presents the negative outcome. I don't think anyone is saying they wished or hoped that Merope would feed Tom Sr. love potion and later give birth to a son that would kill him. That isn't the proposition. Merely that because JKR made it turn out that way, it can be seen as poetic justice based on how the reader viewed Tom as portrayed (as a fictional character). But I didn't see Tom in that light, so I don't see his end as fictional poetic justice. If JKR had shown him whipping the peasants and forcing them to work on his lands and refusing to pay them and setting fire to their homes - well yeah, then I would see a poetic justice in what happened to him. But just for having a disdainful and snobby attitude toward them as everyone in his class did? No, that is too petty of a reason for me personally, even within the framework of a fictional tale. Umbridge is a woman where fictional poetic justice was well represented to me. She didn't just have a disdainful attitude, she was presented as acting upon it and behaving in a vicious manner, imo, in canon. So while I see Hermione's behavior as wholly wrong in leading her to the Centaurs, I do see the poetic justice relevant to Umbridge's outcome there.

sarahlvinpotter

June 2nd, 2009, 2:54 pm

Hmmmm, good thread :tu:

Overall
i say it would have to be a toss u between mcgonnagal or ginny. Mcgonnagal because behind her stern exterior she really does care about the students, as much if not more than dumbledore in my opinion. Also, I love it when she fights against snape and takes charge in DH, it really shows her true character and how much she cares.

Ginny because she is a dark horse in the book. Who would have thought she would have gone from that shy, clumsy girl to an extremely strong character, one of the strongest females in the book in some ways. She had to put up with a lot in CoS and that does get forgetten throughout the books, not to mention having to live with all them male siblings :lol:

Darkside
Well no competition, has to be bellatrix she is such fascinating character and as much pure evil as voldemort, look at the treatment of nevilles parents

Want to know more about
Luna, i want to know more about her quirkyness. But also underneath that she has feelings like anyone else, how does she cope with her loneliness? Also, i would like to know a bit more about Narcissa, how did she get involved with voldemort and fall in love with Lucius, there is more than meets the eye as it is evident in DH with her love for Draco and not telling voldemort that harry was alive.

Melaszka

June 2nd, 2009, 9:22 pm

I feel strongly that it is based on reader perception. You and I likely have a host of various characters we believe received poetic justice and others we feel were greatly wronged by the end they were given, and we may disagree on which fall into which category in each case. That is my point. I don't feel the same about Riddle's end - and I don't feel the same about Merope as a consequence.

Fair point - I probably was slightly arrogantly imposing my view of Tom and Merope on the whole world as the "one true reading", for which I sincerely apologise. You are, of course, right - it's a matter of individual interpretation. The great thing about JKR is that the books are so rich that they sustain many different readings and different people have entirely different takes on the same characters.

I totally see what you mean about Merope and how bad her actions are in one sense. There's just something about her which I love and which inspires my sympathy, but I agree that she can be seen very negatively, too.

Ah, that is not what I meant at all. I was merely pointing out my particular frame of reference in looking at this in a manner similar to real life - just as you did in indicating that you look at the two issues distinctly. I am very aware that you would not view it the same way in real life - that is what you said. I was only speaking about myself in how I read this particular literary tale.

Sorry if it sounded like I was going off on one. It was fascinating to read about your frame of reference and I very much admrire you for the work you have chosen to do. I was just mortified that you might think that I'd be that dismissive of someone in RL! I was trying to compensate for any lack of clarity on my part, not criticising your post.

Where I read literature similar to what I think you are indicating is like in the situation where we were told that Lily was crying over two victims of Voldemort. They were just names and so my total attention was upon Lily and her sorrow, not toward the "names". But I feel in the case of Merope, we have much more canon about her victim, Tom Sr., and his life/outcome in the wake of his interaction with her, as instigated by her. Do you see what I mean?

I do see what you mean. I'm not sure I agree - I am continually surprised and frustrated by how little there is on Riddle Snr in the text, given how key his character is to Voldemort's backstory - but I can see that what Merope did was massive and how this could swing your sympathy very much in his direction, not hers.

I think we discussed this before in relation to something else. It isn't that I disagree with you about Merope. But I look at Tom Sr. the same way. He was raised to be an unpleasant snob because his parents taught him that he and his family were better than those living around them. He spoke of his father's views, so we know that this is not something Tom Sr. just woke up feeling one morning. His moral code was horrible from an objective perspective and that is what he was raised with. He didn't ignore his upbringing anymore than Merope did, imo.

Good point. That is true. I don't feel that this was stressed in his case as much as it was in the case of, say, Draco (who I do feel is presented very much as being a victim of his upbringing in a snobbish, blood fanatic family). In fact, the fact that the third-person narrative at the beginning of GoF tells us he was even worse than his parents kind of implies that he's taken the snobbery further than his upbringing required. But, yes, I take your point that he was hardly likely to turn out a radical socialist with the mum and dad he had!

Well I respect your view. I just didn't see it that way. I guess I just don't buy into the idea that rich, snobs in the ruling class are all 'bad guys' - and automatically assume that they were taking unfair advantage and oppressing others (which is very likely where I would fall off the wagon if JKR made the assumption that all her readers would see it that way).

It's more his attitude to the Gaunts' hovel and his reputation in the village that makes me think that, rather than the fact that he is rich and snobbish per se, but I take your point that the evidence for oppression is pretty slight.

My experience is that many will prejudge those in that class and hate them per se without ever knowing anything about them except surface stuff.

As Riddle appeared to prejudge Merope and her family. Cuts both ways.

As I felt Merope loved him based only on surface stuff. So I still saw him as innocent of anything that would merit all he had to endure as a result of Merope's interaction with him. I mean not only did the dude end up with Merope for a time, he was later killed with all in the house, his bones dug up and used, his home turned into the den of a dark lord with the remaining caretaker killed, he didn't marry his sweetheart - and likely no one from his 'class' wanted anything to do with him marriage wise after his fiasco of a marriage to Merope (as they would see it) and Tom Sr. was belittled throughout the story by Voldy - without, to my knowledge, having done more than be a normal member of his class in a place and at a time where that was the norm and having been tricked and duped by a witch from the wizard world he wasn't aware existed.

He had a pretty bum deal, granted.

Right, I understand where you are coming from. But again, I was explaning my view. I don't think Merope was thinking that way at all - she acted out of love, we agree. My point is that you don't act that way out of love.

I still think that the fact she had never been shown love would have warped her understanding of what love is and how to express it. I always think Merope's signature song ought to be "How Soon Is Now?" by The Smiths (words: "You shut your mouth! How can you say I go about things the wrong way? I am human and I need to be loved, just like everybody else does" ):lol:) But, OK, I'm never going to convert you, no matter how much 80s indie music I quote...

The same is true of Voldy; you don't act the way he did either, and he also had a horrible, sympathy inducing background. But I have far more sympathy for the caretaker when he was killed than for Voldemort when he was killed

I would argue that even Frank the caretaker is given far more backstory than Riddle Snr, though. OK, I'm meandering way off-topic here.

As you indicated, from your point of view, Merope is not responsible for what Voldemort did, and to an extent, I agree. However, Merope is responsible for placing Tom Sr. in the position he was in - and all of the bad stuff that happened to him was a result of that, so in that way she is responsible, imo. Just as her family is not responsible for her feeding Tom love potion, but they are responsibile for placing her in a position to where she would do such a thing, imo. Her family likely had their sympathetic background story too that led them to treat her that way - but chasing back in that way to mitigate for wrongs will eventally lead us to Adam and Eve or the big bang as holding all the responsibility for every act in the world, if you know what I mean. :lol:.

I do know what you mean. I do love Merope, though, I just can't help it. Maybe she's potioned me, too. :lol:

wickedwickedboy

June 3rd, 2009, 3:45 pm

As Riddle appeared to prejudge Merope and her family. Cuts both ways.

Agreed.

I do know what you mean. I do love Merope, though, I just can't help it. Maybe she's potioned me, too. :lol:

:rotfl: - nah, I think you have explained very well why she comes across as a sympathetic character to you. Our particular viewpoints together present a bigger view and likely it will be further enlarged upon by others. I think it's all good. :tu:

SnapeSlave

June 8th, 2009, 9:09 pm

1) I could say Hermione--But, overall, I ADORE Luna Lovegood. Kooky, and such a fun character. Really makes me smile!

2) Oh, Bellatrix Lestrange...Of course. Who else? So interesting.

3) Tonks. I wish that she had been more of a central character...But, there is always my imagination.

Evil_is_fun13

June 8th, 2009, 9:24 pm

Tonks and Luna are my favorite. I like Hermione because she's smart and always seems to know what she's doing. I also think Narcissa Malfoy isn't too bad. Though she seemed pretty stupid. I thought she was pretty cool when she had her head straight.

LysandersGirl

June 10th, 2009, 3:49 am

1. Favourite over-all character?

My favorite over-all female would be Ginny. She's easily forgotten but, she's always been there waiting to be called upon. She doesn't try to interfere and she's unbelievable faithful and loyal.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

Favorite dark female character is Bellatrix Lestrange. She's devoted, has family pride, values character and determination. Voldemort couldn't have picked a better Death Eater! :lol:

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

Minerva McGonagall or Tonks.
Minerva because we only see her as a strict teacher and a fierce fighter. I'd love to know more about her background. And why she is such good friends with Albus Dumbledore.
Tonks to me, was just a filler character. She was sprung upon us in the OotP and her character is charming. I think she's clever and quick-witted and am glad Jo put her in the books. I'd like to know why someone as creative and witty as her is an Auror. And, more of her relationship with Sirius and Lupin especially.

mcgonagall_

June 10th, 2009, 7:26 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
Minerva McGonagall. She's is strong and obviously brilliant. I like the way she's strict but she cares about her students too.
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
Probably Bellatrix Black. She's just so crazy and the way she laughs makes me laugh. :P
3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Poppy Pomfrey. We don't really see her too much, but I really like that character. It would be nice to see more of her and get to know how she came to Hogwarts, was she a student there, etc.

JephReeta

June 10th, 2009, 8:04 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
Ginny Weasley - As far as getting what she wants, she's confident and she knows what she's doing.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
I like Professor Trelawney in that she's so fun to read and a good character. Also, Narcissa Malfoy intrigues me for all the reasons everyone has already said.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
I'd like to know more about Lily Evans Potter.

lil_snuffles

June 10th, 2009, 8:21 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
Hermione. She has always been there for Harry no matter what. She's never betrayed Harry like Ron has done (i.e. Goblet of Fire) and she's a true friend.
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
On the side of the light, I would say McGonagell. Even though it hard to see though her tough exterior, she really does care alot about her students.
3. A character you'd like to know more about?
I would like to know more about Harry's mother. We only get glimpses of her, but we don't know her entire back story.

meesha1971

June 11th, 2009, 6:49 am

But I think there is also a very powerful sense throughout HP that people can change. There are characters who were in on the torture and killing who later had a change of heart, people who supported the suppression of Muggles for what they thought were "good" reasons who finally saw the error of their ways, and "good" people who turn bad and betray their friends. I just don't think the text supports the idea that a person's morality is fixed and once they've done something evil - that's it, that's their character sunk.

For me, the texts are very much steeped in a Christian Socialist ideology, that we ought to strive to be the best we can and not use our own backgrounds as an excuse, but at the same time, be compassionate to and forgiving of others who do evil after not having the best start in life. And people can have a change of heart and start again with a clean slate. More rejoicing in heaven over one person who repents than over 99 righteous persons who did not need to repent, and all that. But this is moving away from the idea of female characters, as most of the examples I can think of that demonstrate this are male characters.....

I would have to disagree because we really don't have any examples in the text of a character who actually does change to that degree. Pettigrew is characterized through his weaknesses and it is presented that it wasn't any change in him that led to him betraying his friends, but instead, that he had managed to fool them as to what kind of person he really was for all those years. Sirius was still kicking himself for not realizing it twelve years later - feeling that he should have known because of how Pettigrew had been while they were students.

On the "bad" sign, we are given a few characters who do something good, but it is not presented as a situation of any great change occurring because their "good" acts are conditional rather than motivated by realizing they were wrong or seeing the error of their ways. They are motivated by selfish reasons and it is presented that they would not have done anything good if the circumstances had been different. There's never any indication of any great change there because of that, IMO.

Narcissa is presented in that manner - it is very obvious that there was no real change there, IMO. She begins to regret that they joined Voldemort's side when Draco becomes a target - a means to punish Lucius for his failures - but she also makes it clear that she still supports what is being done. She has no problem with the mission of Dumbledore being murdered - she simply doesn't want Draco to be part of it because it would put him in danger. Rather than go to the Order or even Dumbledore to put a stop to things, she goes to Snape and asks him to kill Dumbledore instead. She and Lucius remain supportive of Voldemort and continually seek ways to regain their status within the organization. In the end, she is put in the position of choosing between helping Voldemort attain victory and making sure her son is safe and even Harry realizes that, if Draco hadn't stayed behind at the castle, Narcissa would have told Voldemort that he was still alive.

In every instance, it was presented as an exception due to the circumstances rather than any real change, IMO. None of them show any indication of "seeing the error of their ways" or realizing that what was being done was wrong - they were all simply put in the position of having to go against what they believed in to achieve a personal goal that was more important to them, IMO.

But that seems to be absolving Voldemort of responsibility. If you're saying that Merope is entirely responsible for Voldemort's evil personality and his murder of the Riddle family, surely you're applying double standards here? Merope's victimhood doesn't excuse her actions at all, but Voldemort's victimhood means that the responsibility for his crimes is foisted onto his mother?

Not entirely. Merope was physiologically and psychologically unstable due to years of inbreeding resulting in genetic defects. She passed at least some of those genetic defects on to her son. The evidence of that in him is present from birth - Mrs. Cole tells Dumbledore that he never cried as a baby. That is a sign that there is something wrong with the baby because all healthy babies cry - it is how they communicate. That is consistent with Jo's characterization of Voldemort as a psychopath - a genetic defect that has no cure and is present from birth.

That does not absolve Voldemort from responsibility for his own actions, but it does explain the root cause. He was psychologically unstable from the moment he was born and incapable of feeling normal human emotions like love - which leads to him being incapable of feeling empathy or feeling any remorse for his actions. He was capable of discerning right from wrong, but only in the sense of knowing that certain things would get him in trouble and using that knowledge to become adept at deceiving others regarding his actions.

Voldemort is responsible for his own actions, but it was Merope's actions that created him and set him loose on the world.

While not condoning Merope's use of a love potion, I don't think the long-term consequences on the Riddles were so great. Riddle Senior escaped from his marriage angry, bewildered and frightened, but was subsequently able to move on and get on with the rest of his life (until Voldemort killed him, of course! And IMO, that's Voldemort's problem, not Merope's), with no financial or emotional ties to his son. By contrast, Merope herself ends up poor, distraught and dead.

Furthermore, the Riddle are not innocents - the text makes it quite clear that the Riddles were unpleasant, snobbish people who oppressed their tenants and neighbours where they could. After their murder, nobody in the text is sorry they're dead. To an extent, I think JKR portrays Tom Snr's potioning and the family's murder as poetic justice.

While I agree that Tom Riddle Sr. was characterized as an unpleasant, snobbish man himself - along with his parents - I disagree that they weren't portrayed as victims as well. Merope was a victim to her father and brother and then she turned around to victimize someone else. Tom Riddle Sr.'s unpleasant characterization doesn't change that anymore than Merope's victimization removes her culpability, IMO. It doesn't come across to me as poetic justice. It came across to me that two wrongs do not make a right - particularly with Voldemort choosing to murder his grandparents as well as his father. None of them deserved to be treated like that just because they were snobs, IMO.

There is a difference with Harry and Neville - they were born into happy marriages and were deeply loved by their parents, even though they were cruelly deprived of those parents very young. JKR presents that as being the key shaping factor in their personalities, so those exceptions, to me, reinforce (not undermine) the message she sends out that the family environment the perpetrator enjoyed in childhood explains (and to an extent mitigates) their later crimes.

I would have to disagree - particularly with Harry. He has no conscious memory of his parents and doesn't learn anything accurate about them until he goes to Hogwarts at the age of 11. His formative years were spent with relatives who abused and neglected him, letting him know in no uncertain terms that they did not see him as worthy of even the slightest affection, and the constant implication that his parents were "bad" because he's not allowed to ask about them or talk about them at all. He grows up watching Dudley being rewarded for his bad behavior and that is reinforced with even other children refusing to associate with him because of Dudley. The other adults - teachers, etc... - view him as an odd boy because of the strange things that happen around him. Harry being able to overcome all of that and grow into a good person in spite of the environment he was placed in speaks volumes to the type of person that he was at birth, IMO. His environment didn't make him into who he was - he became who he was in spite of it because of the traits his parents passed on to him, IMO.

I think Harry and Neville serve as very good examples of how significant nature is to what a person becomes because neither of them is the product of environment they were raised in - though it does take Neville a bit longer to overcome his than it does Harry. We also have another example with Ron - his parents are poor and argue a lot and it is revealed that he questions whether or not they really love him. But he doesn't succumb to the temptation to be evil - he overcomes that because of the traits he inherited from his parents.

Learned behavior from the family environment can explain some of the character's later crimes to a certain degree, but it never mitigates it, IMO. There's always a choice as to whether or not to emulate negative behaviors or not. As we see with Harry, Ron, and Neville, the type of person they are inside can overcome such negativity so the excuse of having a bad childhood really doesn't hold up, IMO. I see that as a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions by trying to lay the blame on others to be honest.

I don't think it's Tom's wealth, attractiveness or the fact that he didn't have a miserable childhood that deters sympathy. It's his snobbery and the fact that he appears to believe that his wealth gives him the right to treat others like dirt (his somewhat Marie Antoinettish girlfriend thinks that the Gaunts' home should be pulled down because it spoils her pretty view - without sparing a thought for the rights of the people who live there. Now there's an unpleasant female character! And Tom doesn't seem to disagree, he merely notes with disappointment that, oddly, these unsightly peasants seem to own their house, so he can't bulldoze it.) I think we're intended to infer that there's a reason the entire village hates him.

And, of course, as I said earlier, the fact that he's sketched, not fully drawn (in his one big scene in the series, in HBP, he for the most part appears only as a disembodied voice, heard through a window) also prevents me from having that much sympathy for him. One of the big differences between literature and real life, IMO, is that in literature, it's OK to not care that much about someone's fate if you've not really had much contact with them, or they're just sketched generics (fans of Jasper Fforde may be recalling agents Kannon and Phodder and Lamb and Slaughter at this point).

So while I agree that, if Merope had been a real life character, her impact on Riddle's life would have been devastating, I think the way it is presented in the books minimises its seriousness.

It didn't minimize it for me. Nobody deserves to be manipulated with a love potion or murdered just because they're a snob, IMO. Merope's actions had far reaching effects for other people's lives - and not for the better, IMO. Tom Riddle running off with her created a scandal that effected both him and his parents. Fifteen years later, he's still alone and living with his parents - leaving you to wonder if he ever really recovered from the experience.

That doesn't remove his culpability in abandoning his son and I don't have much sympathy for him either because of that, but I wouldn't call what happened to him or his parents poetic justice.

Yes! That's what I find most frustrating and tragic about her story - the way she outwits her father and brother and plans meticulously to win Riddle shows that she has determination, resourcefulness and far greater magical powers than her family realised (and Voldemort must have inherited his exceptional magical powers from someone, and it certainly wasn't his dad, so I think his powers give a hint of what calibre of witch Merope could have been). She could have done so much with her life if she'd set her sights on something more productive than just "getting a guy".

It was frustrating, but I also found it realistic given her genetic defects. If she'd been more psychologically stable to begin with, things most likely would have been different for her - but then we wouldn't have much of a story because those defects wouldn't have been passed on to Voldemort. ;)

(I know I'm going off into treating the characters as real people, but imagine how different things could have been if Merope had gone to Hogwarts and had her talents nurtured and her confidence built up. I assume from her heritage and from the cunning with which she potions Riddle that she would have been sorted into Slytherin - had Slughorn been her housemaster, he would probably have made a fuss of her, because of her "famous" background, and she would have experienced the attention she so lacked at home).

Actually, we don't know if Merope and Morfin went to Hogwarts or not - it's never stated one way or the other as far as I recall. Merope was 18 in the memory that Dumbledore showed Harry and I believe Morfin was older than her - he was certainly of age as he was convicted of using magic to attack a muggle, but not breaking the decree for the restriction of underage magic. Dumbledore also told Harry that Riddle eventually traced his mother's family through information he found at Hogwarts so it is possible that one or both of them attended Hogwarts. They appear to be fairly close in age so they would have been at Hogwarts at the same time - give or take a couple of years - so I don't think that would have made much difference in Merope's demeanor with Morfin around.

Really, even without Morfin around, I don't think it would have made much difference. She was descended from Slytherin, but her family had fallen into poverty and were known for having that vein of instability and violence. I don't think Slughorn would have paid her much attention once he discovered that her branch of the family was poor and had no useful connections. If Merope did attend Hogwarts, it seems more likely to me that she would have faded into the background and not drawn attention to herself.

Yes, she does do the right thing in the end. That's a point in her favour.

But it also further challenges simplistic fairy tale morality. Had she carried on potioning Riddle, doing the wrong thing, things might have turned out better for everybody. Not much of a cautionary tale there.

Well, yes and no. It's good that she stopped, but her motivation would still be significant as to whether that would be a point in her favor or not, IMO. Did she actually believe that Riddle would have fallen in love with her on his own and stay? Did she plan to use the baby to manipulate him into staying from that point forward? Did it become to difficult for her to attain the ingredients to keep making the potion? Did she forget to give him his daily dose one day and he left before she could trick him into another? Dumbledore speculates on the first two, but there are so many possibilities - and none that are presented show Merope accepting that what she did was wrong, IMO. I feel that, even if you only consider the two that Dumbledore guessed at, it still reflects negatively on Merope because there is no realization that it was wrong to manipulate someone like that - only the possibility that she believed she had given him enough potion that he would have come to love her on his own or that she could keep manipulating him with the baby instead of a potion.

And I can't really agree that her continuing to use the potion to manipulate Riddle like that would have resulted in a more positive outcome. In that event, young Tom Riddle would have grown up witnessing his own mother using magic to subjugate a muggle to her will. I think that would have only added to his sense of superiority and hatred of muggles.

IMO, Merope doesn't exactly abandon him. She sells her possessions to provide for him for as long as she can and then makes sure he is in a place where he will be fed and clothed.

Merope died the night that he was born so she never actually provided anything for her child. She sold the locket to take care of herself and she does make it to the orphanage before she gives up her life, but it's difficult to say if that was intentional or not as she staggers in there on a nasty night in the final stages of labor. If it was her plan to leave him at the orphanage, why wait until the end of her labor to go? Why not go there when it started? Her last act is not about the child - it is connected to her father and Tom Riddle Sr. She hopes the baby looks like Riddle and she names him after her father and Riddle - the man who victimized her and the man she victimized. She says nothing else and gives no other acknowledgement to the child. According to Dumbledore, she gave up her life because her heart was broken and she couldn't even bring herself to lift her wand to save herself for her child. So I would say that she did essentially abandon him to the care of strangers who would have no idea how to care for a magical child - let alone a magical child born with a psychological disorder.

That's what I find a bit unrealistic actually. I mean, if you are into killing and torturing can you really be a good guy/girl afterwards? Change of hearts rarely occur in evil people. If you think torture and killing of innocents is okay, then you are evil. No shades of grey there, in my opinion. This is why I find it hard to see Narcissa as grey. She married a man who was part of an organization which had the purpose to basically commit massmurder. Even if she never killed anyone herself, she still indulged and condoned such actions and that makes her just as evil as any other DE. I believe however that there are different levels of evilness (for example, I do think that Voldemort is more evil than Lucius, of course).
Narcissa took a risk in saving Harry. She could have just asked him about Draco, receive the answer she wanted and then tell Voldemort that Harry is still alive. She obviously wanted Voldemort defeated but not because he was evil, but because he was a threat to her family.

I think it's debatable whether Narcissa actually wanted Voldemort defeated. She wanted to get to Draco and knew that the only way she could get into the castle was if Voldemort believed Harry was dead and it was over. And I would agree that she believed it was pretty much over at that point because Voldemort had hit Harry directly with the killing curse and he had survived it again. I think it's more likely that she simply accepted that there was no way that Voldemort was going to defeat Harry and chose to jump ship rather than go down with it.

And, really, if you think about it - how much difference would it have made if Narcissa hadn't lied? I think the only real difference there would have been the location of that final duel. Harry already had all the information he needed and had already figured things out. So, if Narcissa hadn't lied and Voldemort had known Harry was alive while they were still in the forest, that final duel would probably have just taken place there with only the Death Eaters to witness it instead of in the middle of the Great Hall with everyone witnessing it. Narcissa's actions really didn't change Harry's situation all that much, IMO, because he still had to face Voldemort again either way. Her actions only affected the outcome for her because it gave her a chance to delay that final duel and get to Draco.

Other than that, I agree with you.

Is there any difference between love and obsessive love? I mean so far I haven't heard anyone say: "Well, I'm in love with this guy but to be honest I don't care what he thinks of me, I don't feel any need to be around him nor do I care if he is dead or alive." :lol:
I think being in love is a bit obsessive in itself. You think about a person more than you probably should, you dream about them, can't wait to see them again and all that. So I don't see Bellatrix as being particularly obsessive. Obsessive would be to stalk someone, for example or other such extreme behaviour. All DEs are more or less obsessed with what Voldemort thinks about them but that's necessary in order to survive. If Voldemort is unhappy with you, you'll probably not live very long or not get any reward at the end of the war.
With Bellatrix, this gets another dimension as she feels the need to not only impress him but also to conquer him somehow, make him want her.

I would say there's a pretty big difference actually. I love my husband dearly, but if he asked me to go out and murder someone in my family because he felt they tainted my family tree, I wouldn't do it - and I wouldn't have married him if he were that kind of person. Nor would I have gone to the extremes of torturing or killing people in hopes of pleasing him. In a normal, healthy relationship, there are limits - lines that people will not cross - no matter how much they love that person.

Bellatrix had no such limits. There was nothing she would not have done to please Voldemort. He orders her to kill her own niece and she readily agrees - eager to do anything to gain his approval. He sends her nephew on a mission that they all believe he will fail and be killed and she feels that Narcissa should be proud to sacrifice her child for Voldemort because she would be proud to sacrifice her own children if she had any. Anything and everything to please him - there are no lines that Bellatrix would not cross in her obsession with Voldemort.

I'm not so sure about this. She does seem to fear him and his displeasure. She also knows that she in no longer in his favour and that Voldemort prefers Snape.

It is interesting that she becomes suspicious of Snape in that capacity because she is worried about her own position. It's also interesting how quickly she assigns blame to others for that. It's not her fault that the mission at the Ministry failed and Voldemort was displeased - it's Lucius' fault. It's not her fault that Voldemort hasn't been confiding in her - it's Snape's. She knows that there was a change after what happened at the Ministry, but she still sees herself as the person who should be at Voldemort's side. She is the most loyal - she willingly sacrificed years of her life rather than renounce him - she gathered a small group to try and find him while the others scattered and ran - and so on. She is outraged by Snape calling her sacrifice a nice "gesture" and furious that Lucius' failure has reflected back on her and dumbfounded as to how Voldemort could possibly hold Snape in higher favor than her after everything she's done.

Yes, but what does that entail exactly? Voldemort's affections basically mean that she would rule the world at his side. It is clear from the text that Bellatrix isn't the follower type and that she probably doesn't want to continue to be one. She probably hopes that Voldemort will see her as his equal if he develops feelings for her. If Voldemort would offer Bellatrix the opportunity to go live on an island somewhere as his lover would she do it? Would she abandon the cause and her chance to rule the WW for him? We will obviously never know but based on her personality I would say she would not do that.

I'd have to disagree. I think Bellatrix would have done anything Voldemort asked of her. She was willing to kill her own niece after all. And Voldemort wasn't ruling anything when she sacrificed all those years in Azkaban for him when almost everyone else believed that he was gone for good. She did see herself as ruling by Voldemort's side, but it does not appear that she ever saw herself as equal to Voldemort - above the other Death Eaters certainly - but always submissive to Voldemort and prepared to do whatever he asked of her. If Voldemort had gone to her and suggested they kill Rodolphus so they could be married and take those of purest ancestry off somewhere to start their own little pure-blood community, free from muggle/muggleborn filth, I'd say she most likely would have jumped at the chance.

They are opposites but they also have many things in common. Molly and Bellatrix are both women who dedicated their lives entirely to one thing to the exclusion of everything else. Bellatrix has the cause and Voldemort while Molly has her children. If you take away Molly's children and husband, her existence would be as pointless as Bellatrix's existence without Voldemort and their cause. They were both "obessed", if one wishes to put it like that and had equally unhealthy lifestyles, in my opinion.

Again, I would have to disagree because Molly's life did not center around her children to the exclusion of everything else. As a stay-at-home mother myself, I have to admit that I find that suggestion rather offensive. Molly's children were a large part of her focus, but not her entire world. As of COS, there were 9-10 months of the year where she was separated from all of her children and she doesn't fall apart at the prospect. In OOTP, she joins the Order with Arthur and fully participates in the duties and missions there - she even has Sirius deliver a message to Ron because she's doing something for the Order and can't do so herself. Molly's lifestyle was much healthier and more well rounded than Bellatrix's, IMO.

But her conduct is still depicted as being normal and "moral" according to the societal viewpoint of her own culture. And Hagrid himself seems remarkably forgiving and accepting of her behaviour.

Hagrid struck me as more resigned to it than forgiving. It's an awkward moment when Hermione asks him if he found out anything about his mother in OOTP and he brusquely says that she died years ago and goes on to say that it doesn't really matter because she wasn't much of a mother. I thought it was clear that Hagrid was hurt by his mother abandoning him, but he had resigned himself to the fact that she didn't love him.

I do agree that it was presented as typical behavior for a giant on the whole, but I wouldn't say it was considered completely moral even within her own culture. It appeared to me that there was a line there - not all that different from the pure-blood supremacists in the wizarding world. The only difference was that the "size supremacists" among the giants won out in the end by killing those who were smaller and might have been willing to help fight against Voldemort - as Hagrid told the trio in OOTP.

Good point! I kind of assumed they were married because couples with children in family-friendly HP usually are, but you're right, it may be highly significant when JKR doesn't specify whether a couple were married or not.

I never gave it too much thought initially, but when I did think about it, it struck me that Jo presented quite a few realistic and more "gritty" aspects of life without being overly explicit to stay within the "family friendly" guidelines set by the publisher. She found ways to let the readers know that Ron swore a lot without actually showing the words he was using. She works in murder, torture, child abuse, etc... without really crossing many lines because it was all presented without too many gory details. She even tossed in the suspicions that Blaise Zabini's mother had murdered all of her husbands to get their money without deviating from the family friendly feel of it. I thought that was quite cleverly done.

Hagrid's family background was glossed over quite a bit and all we really learn is that his father was a wizard and his mother was a giantess that ran off when he was still quite young. She presents that information about Hagrid in the midst of the Triwizard tournament and keeps the trio focused on the surprise of finding out and the subsequent defamatory article that Rita wrote so nobody really stops to wonder how it came to be that a wizard and a giantess would have a child. So when I did stop to think about it, it did occur to me that it might have been a not so family friendly situation on the whole.

It would be interesting to know more about that whole situation - but I don't know if the details would be entirely family friendly. ;)

Thing is, I don't know that it is a shallow reason, if you are a giant. I'm fascinated by historic cultures that had totally different moral codes to the ones I'm used to (I love having to get my head around how they could possibly perceived things which, to me, are unquestionably wrong, as not just tolerable but positively admirable). I loved the all-too-brief glimpses we got of goblin, centaur and giant cultures in CoS and I'd have liked to know more about what made them tick - so that's one of my reasons for wanting to know more about Hagrid's mum.

It is a different culture, but even within the giant community, we were shown some dissension regarding that practice with the giants systematically killing each other off - particularly the smaller giants being killed by the larger ones. As I said above, it was an interesting parallel to the pure-blood supremacists wanting to eradicate muggleborns from the wizarding world. So I wouldn't say it was a cut and dried issue even among the giants - particularly those who were smaller and abandoned/terrorized because of it.

And also, kudos to Molly, I think she's a great female role model, but there is a lot of idealisation of the maternal in HP and I would have liked to know more about Fridwulfa because she's one of the few actively unmaternal women we see who are not portrayed as psychopaths!

Well, I would agree that she was probably not a psychopath, but I think there was more to it than just the concept of her being unmaternal. She is presented as abandoning both of her children and there is some implication that she was killed herself. Hagrid doesn't paint a very pretty picture of the giant community with them killing each other off - and it doesn't really help that the only giant who fights with them against Voldemort in the end is Grawp - a runt who was abandoned/terrorized because he was smaller than the others. So she might not have been a psychopath, but she was most likely very vicious and cold hearted - and probably would have been supportive of Voldemort's side of things if she had lived from the way giants were depicted as a group.

Also very true. I still think she is somewhat blinkered in not even being open to the possibility that her son might be guilty (particularly as he seems to make Bellatrix look like a lightweight when it comes to OTT, upfront, obsessive, unswerving dedication to the Dark Lord - could she really not have noticed that?).

I agree that Mrs. Crouch was somewhat blinkered in regards to her son, but I think that was presented in a realistic, believable manner. Crouch Jr. was shown to be very good at role-playing - he managed to convince Dumbledore that he was Alastor Moody for nearly a year after all. And even after being sent to Azkaban, he never slipped up in all the time he was there - Sirius tells the trio about him being brought in and how he was still screaming for his mother, but then went quiet after a few days. He kept up his display of innocence even in the presence of dementors. I doubt Mrs. Crouch ever saw any indication of his obsession and dedication to Voldemort. I think it's more likely that he was very careful to be supportive of what his father was doing in working against Voldemort in the presence of his parents.

And there's also the Imperius curse to consider - many of Voldemort's supporters were able to talk their way out of Azkaban by claiming they were begin controlled that way. Not to mention the various memory charms that could be utilized - i.e. the Confundus charm. I don't think it would have been very difficult at all for Mrs. Crouch to convince herself that her son was completely innocent even though he wasn't.

I don't know. Again, with Narcissa there's a bit of a cultural thing going on - she has been raised from birth to view Muggles as vermin and wizards and witches who fraternise with them as traitors. I imagine she genuinely believes that Arthur Weasley is the immoral one, not her. I think she and Bellatrix are, in a way, true to their own concept of morality, for which, in a perverse kind of way, I respect them.

I can believe that maybe, one day, Narcissa would come to understand that her actions and allegiances in early life were wrong, although I totally agree with you that that doesn't happen at the end of DH - she merely realises that Voldemort is a bigger threat to her husband and son than the Order are. In my book, though, that puts her on a similar moral footing to Regulus. And perhaps, in the years after the end of the war, if she were a real person, not a literary character, she might find that once the Voldemort thread had unravelled, the whole Pureblood,anti-Muggle tapestry would fall apart.

While I do agree that Narcissa saw people like Arthur as being in the wrong and herself as being in the right, I can't say that I have any respect for anyone who views tolerance as immoral or even just wrong. That type of warped morality doesn't just stem from what they were taught, IMO. We have too many examples of people who managed to overcome such negativity - both in real life and within the story. Sirius was also taught that same ideology from the time he was born, but he realized how wrong it was as a child and was strong enough to stand up against what he knew was immoral. Andromeda would fall along those lines as well - rejecting her family's traditions and beliefs and even marrying a muggleborn.

Regulus eventually takes a personal stand against Voldemort, but like Narcissa, it was conditional and the result of Voldemort betraying him. He does something that will help in eventually defeating Voldemort, but not necessarily to stop the movement against muggles and muggleborns because Voldemort being defeated wouldn't result in the pure-blood supremacists giving up those beliefs, IMO. These people display an astonishing degree of cruelty and an almost complete lack of empathy - and what little empathy they do show is for their immediate family or - in some cases - to people like themselves. They may not be psychopaths to the extent of Voldemort, but they are borderline, IMO. They need to see themselves as superior to others and the pure-blood supremacy line fed that need for them, IMO.

Because of that, I don't really see Narcissa's views ever changing in that regard - and I would say the same for the rest of her family as well. She made an exception because Draco was in danger and there's not really anything presented in the text to demonstrate that any of those events would have an effect on her views of muggles and muggleborns. If anything, Voldemort's defeat would only serve to reaffirm her belief that pure-bloods are superior because it became known that he was a half-blood with a muggle father, IMO. I think it's more likely that Narcissa - really the Malfoy family - would simply choose to believe that their mistake was in supporting a half-blood rather than any of them ever coming to realize that what they had done was wrong. I think the best that could be hoped for there would be that the Malfoy family would be more cautious in who they chose to support in the future - and hopefully the Ministry would keep a very close eye on them.

wickedwickedboy

June 11th, 2009, 7:40 am

Not entirely. Merope was physiologically and psychologically unstable due to years of inbreeding resulting in genetic defects. She passed at least some of those genetic defects on to her son. The evidence of that in him is present from birth - Mrs. Cole tells Dumbledore that he never cried as a baby. That is a sign that there is something wrong with the baby because all healthy babies cry - it is how they communicate. That is consistent with Jo's characterization of Voldemort as a psychopath - a genetic defect that has no cure and is present from birth.

That does not absolve Voldemort from responsibility for his own actions, but it does explain the root cause. He was psychologically unstable from the moment he was born and incapable of feeling normal human emotions like love - which leads to him being incapable of feeling empathy or feeling any remorse for his actions. He was capable of discerning right from wrong, but only in the sense of knowing that certain things would get him in trouble and using that knowledge to become adept at deceiving others regarding his actions.

Voldemort is responsible for his own actions, but it was Merope's actions that created him and set him loose on the world.

I think that when it comes to villains like Voldemort, it is difficult to analyze them in real world terms. If he truly was unable to love and evil due to a defect, then he should have been captured and placed in a mental facility, not killed. No one should have made plans that would destroy him, imo. But fictional villains must die, so I think they are supposed to be killed sans analysis. I think it was difficult to write Voldmort as having no love at all - no compassion and I saw signs of it here and there despite JKR trying not to infuse him with any. But I think if he is analysed as genetically defective - rendering him unable to love (mental/psychological inability), then he would not be responsible for his acts in as far as his state of mind was concerned. I don't think that was the idea JKR was trying to put forth.

However, in the case of Merope it was easier I think because she went on to take her own life which would allow for a defect of the type you are speaking of under analysis. Still, the book did not really consider her from that angle, imo; she was spoken of as undergoing trauma and being too weak to handle it - but based on circumstance rather than a genetic defect. So I am not certain she was to be seen as truly mentally diminished, but rather, as beaten down and falling prey to her circumstances and own devices. Thus, I am not certain that medical definiciency was supposed to be a part of her rendering overall.

So I am not certain about Merope having passed any type of defect to her son. I didn't really get that idea while reading. I did get the idea that Voldemort not crying was to show some type of early defect - but I avoided reaching that conclusion because it would reduce Voldemort to not having the ability to make choices based on good and evil, imo. If that was the case, Dumbledore should not have plotted to kill him and others should not have been behind any such plan either, imo. If he did have the ability to make choices, then the fact that he didn't cry as a baby would be irrelevant to me.

meesha1971

June 11th, 2009, 9:11 am

I think that when it comes to villains like Voldemort, it is difficult to analyze them in real world terms. If he truly was unable to love and evil due to a defect, then he should have been captured and placed in a mental facility, not killed. No one should have made plans that would destroy him, imo. But fictional villains must die, so I think they are supposed to be killed sans analysis. I think it was difficult to write Voldmort as having no love at all - no compassion and I saw signs of it here and there despite JKR trying not to infuse him with any. But I think if he is analysed as genetically defective - rendering him unable to love (mental/psychological inability), then he would not be responsible for his acts in as far as his state of mind was concerned. I don't think that was the idea JKR was trying to put forth.

However, in the case of Merope it was easier I think because she went on to take her own life which would allow for a defect of the type you are speaking of under analysis. Still, the book did not really consider her from that angle, imo; she was spoken of as undergoing trauma and being too weak to handle it - but based on circumstance rather than a genetic defect. So I am not certain she was to be seen as truly mentally diminished, but rather, as beaten down and falling prey to her circumstances and own devices. Thus, I am not certain that medical definiciency was supposed to be a part of her rendering overall.

So I am not certain about Merope having passed any type of defect to her son. I didn't really get that idea while reading. I did get the idea that Voldemort not crying was to show some type of early defect - but I avoided reaching that conclusion because it would reduce Voldemort to not having the ability to make choices based on good and evil, imo. If that was the case, Dumbledore should not have plotted to kill him and others should not have been behind any such plan either, imo. If he did have the ability to make choices, then the fact that he didn't cry as a baby would be irrelevant to me.

I think the difference is that Voldemort forced it to be a kill or be killed situation for Harry. Capturing him alive wasn't really a viable option as I see it because he wasn't going to give in to that without a fight. Before the horcruxes were destroyed that would simply end up repeating what happened at Godric's Hollow - after the horcruxes were destroyed, he would be killed in the attempt, IMO. When it comes to psychopaths, it is significant that there is no known cure and it is considered untreatable at this point in time so the choice of trying to capture them alive and hold them in a mental facility or killing them is largely going to come down to the circumstances - what crime they are committing and whether or not capturing them alive is possible.

Jo characterized Voldemort as a psychopath - she talked about that a few times as well. This has come up on the "If Merope had lived thread" as well so I won't go into all of it here, but being a psychopath doesn't remove Voldemort's culpability for his crimes. Psychopaths do know the difference between right and wrong in the sense of being able to observe what is considered acceptable behavior and what is not. They don't actually understand why something is right or wrong because they are incapable of feeling empathy - and, therefore, incapable of feeling remorse - but they know what is considered right and wrong. The typical psychopath uses that knowledge to become very adept at conning and manipulating people to hide their true nature. That is why a lot of psychopaths are not diagnosed until it's too late and they've done horrible things - and it is also why this is viewed as incurable and untreatable. We see that demonstrated with Voldemort throughout the series - particularly in regards to his past and childhood. He was very adept at fooling people into believing him to be something he was not.

In terms of Merope - her son being born a psychopath would most likely be the result of her own genetic defects being passed on. Dumbledore makes a point to tell Harry that the Gaunts were known for having a vein of instability and violence due to years of inbreeding. Voldemort inherited the physical appearance of his father, but his mental capacity is very much in line with what we see with Marvolo and Morfin in terms of his actions and opinions of muggles, but he was much colder and much more calculating than they were - less driven by anger and more driven by the need to prove himself as superior to everyone else. He gives in to anger when his superiority comes into question, but for the most part, he was very cold and calculating. He knew what he was doing was wrong in terms of how others perceived his actions, but he didn't care because he was incapable of putting himself in their shoes to understand why they perceived it as wrong.

I think we see a similar lack of empathy within Merope herself. It seems to me that she was aware that using the love potion on Riddle was bad, but she doesn't appear to understand why or care. It was a means to an end to her and - if Dumbledore was correct in his speculation - she believed the end result would be Riddle falling in love with her on his own or at least staying with her because she was pregnant - which would merely be another form of manipulation. I wouldn't go so far as to say she was also a psychopath, but I think she was borderline and had severe psychological defects from birth due to the years of inbreeding in her family.

The_Green_Woods

June 11th, 2009, 9:46 am

1. Favourite over-all character?

Hermione and Luna. I also like Narcissa and think the 3 of them are very strong characters with powerful motivations. Hermione and Luna are motivated by a sense of right while Narcissa is motivated by love. I think Bellatrix is a very strong charecter too, who is driven by love but not by a sense of right.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

Same answer as above. Light - Hermione/Luna. Dark - Narcissa.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

Oh, so many of them. All of them; I'd like to know about all of them.

Trixa

June 11th, 2009, 10:10 am

I would say there's a pretty big difference actually. I love my husband dearly, but if he asked me to go out and murder someone in my family because he felt they tainted my family tree, I wouldn't do it - and I wouldn't have married him if he were that kind of person. Nor would I have gone to the extremes of torturing or killing people in hopes of pleasing him. In a normal, healthy relationship, there are limits - lines that people will not cross - no matter how much they love that person.
Well, you are not evil. You have to understand that Bellatrix doesn't think like normal people.

Bellatrix had no such limits. There was nothing she would not have done to please Voldemort. He orders her to kill her own niece and she readily agrees - eager to do anything to gain his approval. He sends her nephew on a mission that they all believe he will fail and be killed and she feels that Narcissa should be proud to sacrifice her child for Voldemort because she would be proud to sacrifice her own children if she had any. Anything and everything to please him - there are no lines that Bellatrix would not cross in her obsession with Voldemort.

Do you find this to be different from how the other DEs would behave? You think that Dolohov for example wouldn't do something which meant he was getting in Voldemort's favour and thus in a position of power?
You mention Tonks, well, what is she to Bellatrix anyway? She's wasn't someone Bella cared about and thus there is no big sacrifice there. Likewise with hypothetical children. I also think that was Bella's twisted way of comforting Narcissa.

Again, I would have to disagree because Molly's life did not center around her children to the exclusion of everything else. As a stay-at-home mother myself, I have to admit that I find that suggestion rather offensive. Molly's children were a large part of her focus, but not her entire world. As of COS, there were 9-10 months of the year where she was separated from all of her children and she doesn't fall apart at the prospect. In OOTP, she joins the Order with Arthur and fully participates in the duties and missions there - she even has Sirius deliver a message to Ron because she's doing something for the Order and can't do so herself. Molly's lifestyle was much healthier and more well rounded than Bellatrix's, IMO.

Molly may be a part of the Order in theory but she certainly isn't an active member. Whenever the others are on duty, she stays home. One has to wonder why she joined the organization in the first place. Her lifestyle isn't the typical lifestyle for a housewife. I bet other housewives have friends, family, hobbies, activities that have nothing to do with their children. Molly never has any of these. She never expresses any desire to do anything alone or to do something that is entirely for herself. When the children are off to school, Arthur is her priority. She dedicated her whole life to one thing to the exclusion of everything else. Just like Bellatrix. Bellatrix also has the relationship with her sister and her family in general, besides Voldemort and the Cause. Both women have their lives centered around one thing.

Pearl_Took

June 11th, 2009, 11:49 am

1. Favourite over-all character?

Well, it has to be Hermione, really. She's the most well developed of all JKR's female characters and she does have many endearing qualities.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

Light -- Lily (with Minerva a close second, hard not to love her). Dark -- Narcissa.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

Lily. :)

I love her but have issues with how JKR presents her. :yuhup:

meesha1971

June 11th, 2009, 1:42 pm

Well, you are not evil. You have to understand that Bellatrix doesn't think like normal people.

I understand that quite well - her obsession with Voldemort is part of her fanaticism, IMO.

Do you find this to be different from how the other DEs would behave? You think that Dolohov for example wouldn't do something which meant he was getting in Voldemort's favour and thus in a position of power?
You mention Tonks, well, what is she to Bellatrix anyway? She's wasn't someone Bella cared about and thus there is no big sacrifice there. Likewise with hypothetical children. I also think that was Bella's twisted way of comforting Narcissa.

I think Bellatrix stands out from the crowd in that regard. Neither Lucius nor Narcissa was willing to sacrifice Draco even though both of them were desperate to regain Voldemort's favor. And it wasn't Narcissa jumping at the chance to kill Andromeda's daughter to please Voldemort - she was staring deadpan at the wall and not responding to the taunts. I would say that each of the Death Eaters would most likely have a limit - a line they would not cross - in regards to their family or a loved one. For Regulus, it was Kreacher.

I do agree that was Bellatrix's twisted way of comforting Narcissa, but it stands out to me that she believed that would be a comfort so it stands to reason that she was being honest about her own belief. Otherwise, she wouldn't see that as a comfort, IMO.

Molly may be a part of the Order in theory but she certainly isn't an active member. Whenever the others are on duty, she stays home. One has to wonder why she joined the organization in the first place. Her lifestyle isn't the typical lifestyle for a housewife. I bet other housewives have friends, family, hobbies, activities that have nothing to do with their children. Molly never has any of these. She never expresses any desire to do anything alone or to do something that is entirely for herself. When the children are off to school, Arthur is her priority. She dedicated her whole life to one thing to the exclusion of everything else. Just like Bellatrix. Bellatrix also has the relationship with her sister and her family in general, besides Voldemort and the Cause. Both women have their lives centered around one thing.

Those are some very big assumptions about Molly and I don't feel that any of them are supported by the text. There is no indication in the text that Molly lived for her family to the exclusion of all else, IMO. I think the text shows just the opposite. She joined the Order and she was an active member. This is shown quite clearly in OOTP because she took her turn being on duty to guard the prophecy just like everyone else. That was why Sirius passed the message on to Ron about Molly not wanting him to participate in the DA - Molly was on duty and could not do it herself (OOTP, pgs 370-371). She put her duty to the Order first and delegated Sirius to deliver the message to Ron. That's not the action of a woman who's life is only centered around one thing, IMO.

We see Molly through Harry's eyes and his focus on her centers around the fact that she is Ron's mother - and becomes his surrogate mother. Every time that he's around Molly it is in that capacity as it is typically a school holiday and most - if not all - of the kids are there. Harry never sees Molly outside of the capacity and doesn't really care what she does outside of that and never bothers to find out. That's normal - my sons' friends don't interrogate me about my hobbies or interests. They're not interested in me outside of my role as a mother and I wouldn't expect them to be. Not that I have much time to dwell on it - I swear I had more free time when I actually had a job than I do now that I stay at home. I haven't seen my best friend in six months - both of us are stay at home moms, but neither of us has enough spare time to get together even when the kids are in school. There's always something coming up. But I digress ....

We are given little glimpses into Molly's interests even if Harry doesn't pay much attention to them. She likes music - particularly Celestina Warbeck. She had a bit of a celebrity crush on Gilderoy Lockhart in COS - and she's still using his books in OOTP so it's implied that continues. She chooses not to go to the Quidditch World Cup in GOF - she does plan on buying the school supplies while they're gone, but that would not take up the entire time so she would also have some time to herself as well. We learn about her duties with the Order in OOTP. In HBP, we see that she and Tonks have become good friends - Tonks is there when Harry arrives after midnight having tea with Molly. In the end, we learn that Molly had been counseling both of them regarding their relationship and Lupin's continued insistance that it was too dangerous for him and Tonks to be together.

All in all, I would say that Molly is presented as having a fairly well rounded life with her family, home, friends, etc... I really don't see where anyone could come away with the impression that she lived her life for her family to the exclusion of all else. :hmm:

RemusLupinFan

June 11th, 2009, 3:50 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
Of the primary characters, I'd have to say Hermione. She is definitely the most developed female character, and she has some very good qualities. She's also a bit like me in her devotion toward academic excellence. ;) Luna would be my second choice. I like that she sees things in a very different way from everyone else, and even when bad things happen to her (such as getting her things stolen), she's always optimistic that everything will be alright. Though she may be quirky and she often believes things without having seen them, she's also has some wise things to say.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
Of the light - Minerva McGonagall (aside from the ones listed above). For the dark - Narcissa because she turns out to be a very complex character who isn't quite what she seems in the beginning; and Bellatrix because she's such a strong, evil character who you love to hate.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
I'd say McGonagall and Lily. I'd love to know more about McGonagall's backstory and more about her personal life. With Lily, I'd like to know more about her school years and how she finally ended up with James.

Anhelda

June 11th, 2009, 4:17 pm

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

Lily.

I love her but have issues with how JKR presents her.

Care to elaborate on that? Not that I disagree, mind you--Lily is both my favorite "light" female character after Hermione and the person I'd like to know more about, but I'd like to hear your take on Jo's presentation of her.

Vita

June 11th, 2009, 4:23 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
3. A character you'd like to know more about?

1)I would have to say that my favorite female character(s) from the books are Hermione and Molly Weasley. For Hermione I like the fact that she exhibits all the traits of Gryffindor, even above her intellect. She is brave as she proves so many times while going with Harry on all his escapades and she is loyal with was ultimately tested in DH when even Ron failed for awhile. Maybe that's what I love most about her :) She let the boy (or is Ron a man at the point - who knows) go back to the burrow during a time of war and stays faithful to what she thinks is right. :)

And Molly is just made of awesome. I wish my mother was like her. :lol:

2) Light: I suppose my favorite other character would be Ginny. I know many people criticize her for being 2 dimensional and mary sue like but since she is Jo's Mary Sue I still love her. And the fact she played professional Quidditch just makes it even better.

Dark: I have to agree with rlf, I like Narcissa. She is a complex character who is really the first who shows that even those on the "dark side" still have many of the same concerns as "light side" families. I think even though Lucius does alot of strutting about she is the glue that holds the family together.

3) Eileen Snape! As Snape in my opinion is one of the most fascinating characters I would love to know more about his parents.

Trixa

June 11th, 2009, 5:20 pm

think Bellatrix stands out from the crowd in that regard. Neither Lucius nor Narcissa was willing to sacrifice Draco even though both of them were desperate to regain Voldemort's favor. And it wasn't Narcissa jumping at the chance to kill Andromeda's daughter to please Voldemort - she was staring deadpan at the wall and not responding to the taunts.
Lucius and Narcissa aren't a very good example since neither of them is or has ever been particularly loyal to Voldemort. I chose Dolohov because he, like Bellatrix, didn't deny his connections to Voldemort and went to Azkaban for it.
I would say that each of the Death Eaters would most likely have a limit - a line they would not cross - in regards to their family or a loved one. For Regulus, it was Kreacher.

For Bellatrix, that line would definitely be Narcissa since she picked her over Voldemort and followed her to Spinner's End.

Those are some very big assumptions about Molly and I don't feel that any of them are supported by the text. There is no indication in the text that Molly lived for her family to the exclusion of all else, IMO. I think the text shows just the opposite. She joined the Order and she was an active member. This is shown quite clearly in OOTP because she took her turn being on duty to guard the prophecy just like everyone else. That was why Sirius passed the message on to Ron about Molly not wanting him to participate in the DA - Molly was on duty and could not do it herself (OOTP, pgs 370-371). She put her duty to the Order first and delegated Sirius to deliver the message to Ron. That's not the action of a woman who's life is only centered around one thing, IMO.

The fact that Molly was on duty for the Order once isn't enough to convince me that she was an active member especially since she wasn't part of any other missions. The exception would be the final battle but even then she is only motivated by the fact that her daughter is in danger. If it were only Hermione and Luna battling Bellatrix, I doubt she would have intervened.

All in all, I would say that Molly is presented as having a fairly well rounded life with her family, home, friends, etc... I really don't see where anyone could come away with the impression that she lived her life for her family to the exclusion of all else
Since we never see her being anything else than a mother, for me at least it seemed a logical conclusion to draw. I accept your points about Molly liking music and her relationship with Tonks but then again Bellatrix also has her relationship with her sister so they balance each other out on that one. Bella also has at least one Death Eater pal, Travers. But all in all, Bellatrix is mostly seen as Voldemort's follower just like Molly is mostly seen as a mother. JKR is trying to present Molly's "obsession" as more acceptable because being devoted to your family is obviously better than being devoted to a mass murderer but after all having your life only centered around one thing is unhealthy no matter what that thing is.

meesha1971

June 11th, 2009, 8:46 pm

Lucius and Narcissa aren't a very good example since neither of them is or has ever been particularly loyal to Voldemort. I chose Dolohov because he, like Bellatrix, didn't deny his connections to Voldemort and went to Azkaban for it.

I would have to disagree because Lucius and Narcissa were both very loyal to Voldemort except where it came to Draco. That was the line they would not cross even for Voldemort. And that was the sole exception to their loyalty.

Dolohov was convicted as one of the five Death Eaters who murdered Fabian and Gideon Prewitt and subsequently confirmed to be a Death Eater by Karkaroff after his capture. No family connections of any kind are given for him so we don't have enough information. He is not shown to be anywhere near as fanatical as Bellatrix though, IMO.

For Bellatrix, that line would definitely be Narcissa since she picked her over Voldemort and followed her to Spinner's End.

I would have to disagree because Bellatrix made her purpose clear that night. She followed Narcissa to try and stop her from telling Snape anything. Once she discovered that Snape already knew of the plan, there was no reason for her to stop Narcissa - though she was visibly upset that Snape had been included in the plan. I think Bellatrix's actions and words that night showed that Voldemort was her top priority over everything else - including her sister.

The fact that Molly was on duty for the Order once isn't enough to convince me that she was an active member especially since she wasn't part of any other missions. The exception would be the final battle but even then she is only motivated by the fact that her daughter is in danger. If it were only Hermione and Luna battling Bellatrix, I doubt she would have intervened.

It does appear that Molly did not do as much while her kids were home from school over the summer, but I find that to be realistic given the circumstances as well as the fact that she wanted to keep the kids out of it as much as she could. Still, she is part of the Order - participating in the meetings, etc... - and she was more active after the kids returned to school. To say that Molly was not part of any other mission is an assumption that is not supported by the text, IMO. We know that she was taking turns with the others to guard the prophecy - that was what she was doing when she had Sirius deliver the message to Ron for her. Since they were all taking turns and they all had more than one, it is clear that Molly did that more than once, IMO. Harry was not told what the Order was doing because Dumbledore had opted not to tell him about the prophecy at that point and he was not informed as to who was doing what or when they did it because they all felt he was too young at that point. That doesn't change the fact that they were doing such things without him being aware of it - Molly included.

I would agree that it is debatable whether Molly would have gone after Bellatrix if Ginny had not been the one who was almost hit by her curse - though I do feel that Molly would have been protective of Hermione as well given that she had taken Hermione in near as much as she had Harry. However, Bellatrix was not the only Death Eater fighting in that final battle. Molly was part of the fighting before she went after Bellatrix - that's why she came to Hogwarts and why she was in the Great Hall where everyone was fighting. To assume that Molly was just standing around in the Great Hall twiddling her thumbs while everyone else was fighting around her doesn't make much sense, IMO - it was a battle involving everyone. If Molly had not actively been part of the fighting, then she would have taken Ginny and left entirely or stayed in the Room of Requirement with her. Instead, Molly instructed Ginny to stay in the Room of Requirement because she was underage and joined the battle with everyone else.

Since we never see her being anything else than a mother, for me at least it seemed a logical conclusion to draw. I accept your points about Molly liking music and her relationship with Tonks but then again Bellatrix also has her relationship with her sister so they balance each other out on that one. Bella also has at least one Death Eater pal, Travers. But all in all, Bellatrix is mostly seen as Voldemort's follower just like Molly is mostly seen as a mother. JKR is trying to present Molly's "obsession" as more acceptable because being devoted to your family is obviously better than being devoted to a mass murderer but after all having your life only centered around one thing is unhealthy no matter what that thing is.

Bellatrix would have turned on Narcissa on a dime - as we see in Spinners End - so I don't see any similarity there. Travers doesn't come across as a friend to Bellatrix - and he becomes less suspicious of Hermione's impersonation when she talks down to him as though he were inferior so I would say that was the norm.

The text does not support the assumption that Molly's life centered only around her family and children as we know that for 9-10 months out of the year her children are not home and she's certainly not attached to Arthur at the hip 24/7 during that time. We are shown that Molly had her own life as well and made choices for the good of the wizarding world that - by her own worries - put her family in danger. A woman who is obsessed with her children and lives only for them would not pack them up and move into Order headquarters to actively join the rebellion against Voldemort knowing full well that would make her entire family a target, IMO. The type of woman you are describing would have dug a deep hole and hidden herself and her children away - avoiding any connection with Dumbledore or the Order. That's just not the type of person Molly was. Her family was important to her, but not to the exclusion of all else. I think the text demonstrates that she had a very healthy outlook in that she understood that she couldn't just sit around doing nothing while Voldemort took over even if it did mean that it would put her family in danger. Dumbledore understood that as well - which is why he was certain that he could count on both Molly and Arthur after Voldemort returned and Fudge refused to believe it.

“There is work to be done,” he said. “Molly . . . am I right in thinking that I can count on you and Arthur?”

“Of course you can,” said Mrs. Weasley. She was white to the lips, but she looked resolute.

Molly knew then that agreeing to help Dumbledore would put her entire family in danger and that did frighten her, but she chose what was right over what was easy.

Trixa

June 11th, 2009, 9:56 pm

I would have to disagree because Lucius and Narcissa were both very loyal to Voldemort except where it came to Draco. That was the line they would not cross even for Voldemort. And that was the sole exception to their loyalty.

This is simply not true. It is made clear in the books that Lucius Malfoy denied having any connections to Voldemort after the latter's downfall. Voldemort even calls him his" slippery friend". The Malfoys were never as loyal as the Lestranges.

Dolohov was convicted as one of the five Death Eaters who murdered Fabian and Gideon Prewitt and subsequently confirmed to be a Death Eater by Karkaroff after his capture. No family connections of any kind are given for him so we don't have enough information. He is not shown to be anywhere near as fanatical as Bellatrix though, IMO.

He doesn't need to be fanatical. Being in Voldemort's favour would bring him power and this is what all DEs want. That's why they would do anything to get in his favour. It's not because they like him, it's because of what he can offer them. With Bellatrix it's a mixture of both.

I would have to disagree because Bellatrix made her purpose clear that night. She followed Narcissa to try and stop her from telling Snape anything. Once she discovered that Snape already knew of the plan, there was no reason for her to stop Narcissa - though she was visibly upset that Snape had been included in the plan. I think Bellatrix's actions and words that night showed that Voldemort was her top priority over everything else - including her sister.

If Bellatrix would have really tried to stop Narcissa from going to Spinner's End, Narcissa would have been stopped. Since the woman is a skilled duelist I really doubt her little sister would be much of a challenge for her. Besides, you are forgetting that Bella helped Narcissa with the Unbreakable Vow. Voldemort would hardly approve of his followers conspiring behind his back and Bellatrix knows that.

To say that Molly was not part of any other mission is an assumption that is not supported by the text, IMO
On the contrary, it is supported by the text. Whenever the Order members are on a mission, Molly is absent.

To assume that Molly was just standing around in the Great Hall twiddling her thumbs while everyone else was fighting around her doesn't make much sense, IMO - it was a battle involving everyone. If Molly had not actively been part of the fighting, then she would have taken Ginny and left entirely or stayed in the Room of Requirement with her.
That's what she should have done, IMO, if she were supposed to be an over protective mother. No mother is going to abandon her child in the middle of a battle.

Bellatrix would have turned on Narcissa on a dime - as we see in Spinners End - so I don't see any similarity there.
No idea what this is based on. We see the exact opposite, IMO. It is Voldemort who takes a back seat there.

A woman who is obsessed with her children and lives only for them would not pack them up and move into Order headquarters to actively join the rebellion against Voldemort knowing full well that would make her entire family a target, IMO. The type of woman you are describing would have dug a deep hole and hidden herself and her children away - avoiding any connection with Dumbledore or the Order. That's just not the type of person Molly was. Her family was important to her, but not to the exclusion of all else. I think the text demonstrates that she had a very healthy outlook in that she understood that she couldn't just sit around doing nothing while Voldemort took over even if it did mean that it would put her family in danger.
The reason why Molly fought Voldemort was most likely related to her children. This is the thing with Molly, she only gets motivated to do something when someone she loves is in danger. The other Order members are fighting for the good of all wizards while Molly is only focused on her own family.

Travers doesn't come across as a friend to Bellatrix - and he becomes less suspicious of Hermione's impersonation when she talks down to him as though he were inferior so I would say that was the norm.

It was quite the opposite actually. Travers becomes suspicious when Hermione snaps at him which suggests that he isn't normally treated that way by Bellatrix.

meesha1971

June 11th, 2009, 11:02 pm

This is simply not true. It is made clear in the books that Lucius Malfoy denied having any connections to Voldemort after the latter's downfall. Voldemort even calls him his" slippery friend". The Malfoys were never as loyal as the Lestranges.

Lucius talked his way out of Azkaban at a time when he had a wife and 15 month old child at home so I would include that as Draco being an exception. In all other aspects, Lucius and Narcissa were completely loyal to Voldemort. Of course, none of the other Death Eaters were willing to go to Azkaban as Bellatrix was - she stood alone there as well. Many of them were captured and unable to talk their way out - i.e. Dolohov, Rookwood, etc... - and some of them were killed fighting against that, but none of them went willingly like Bellatrix did.

He doesn't need to be fanatical. Being in Voldemort's favour would bring him power and this is what all DEs want. That's why they would do anything to get in his favour. It's not because they like him, it's because of what he can offer them. With Bellatrix it's a mixture of both.

And yet he is still not as loyal as Bellatrix. Bellatrix stands alone among the Death Eaters in that regard. The only other Death Eater that would come close to Bellatrix's obsession would be Barty Crouch Jr. - and he was removed from the picture in GOF.

If Bellatrix would have really tried to stop Narcissa from going to Spinner's End, Narcissa would have been stopped. Since the woman is a skilled duelist I really doubt her little sister would be much of a challenge for her. Besides, you are forgetting that Bella helped Narcissa with the Unbreakable Vow. Voldemort would hardly approve of his followers conspiring behind his back and Bellatrix knows that.

That is another assumption - we can't say what Narcissa's skills were as they were never shown, IMO. Bellatrix was certainly more insane, but that doesn't mean she was more skilled than her sister - and Bellatrix demonstrated that there was some fear there when Narcissa turned on her and hexed her - she keeps her distance after that. Bellatrix made her intention clear. She did not want Narcissa to talk to Snape because she did not trust him and - as far as she knew at that point - Snape did not know about the plan and Narcissa would have been betraying Voldemort by telling him of it. She was doing what she could to stop Narcissa and I think it is made clear that - had Snape not been in on the plan, Bellatrix would have done whatever necessary to prevent Narcissa from betraying Voldemort. Ideally, that would have been accomplished without hurting her - she was a pure-blood with proper wizarding pride after all - but I think it was made clear that Bellatrix would have used whatever means necessary if it had come to it.

Once it became clear that Snape had been included in the plan, there was no betrayal and, as much as that grated on Bellatrix, she had no cause to stop Narcissa from talking to Snape then. The Unbreakable Vow did not betray Voldemort either because it complied with the orders that Voldemort had already given Snape - Draco was to try first and, if he failed, Snape was to do it instead. Nothing they did that night went against Voldemort's orders or betrayed him because Snape refused to budge on that and told them he was not going to go against Voldemort's orders that Draco try first. If anything, Narcissa's actions with the Vow furthered Voldemort's plan by putting Snape in the position of having no choice but to follow the orders Voldemort had given him - he would die if he didn't.

And it was being willing to take the Unbreakable Vow that convinced Bellatrix that Snape was loyal to Voldemort and not working with Dumbledore against him - which was rather ironic all things considered. :lol:

On the contrary, it is supported by the text. Whenever the Order members are on a mission, Molly is absent.

That is an assumption that is not supported by the text because we are not privy to every mission the Order goes on - Harry was not included in all of the Order's activities. If we followed that logic, then we would have to say that nobody in the Order was an active member because we only get accounts of a few of them doing one or two things - the rest is implied by the fact that they are Order members - same as Molly. And that would include Dumbledore - whom we never even see attend a meeting let alone going on a mission. That logic doesn't follow because it simply was not feasible for Jo to include every detail about what the Order was doing without making Harry a full member being included in all the plans at the age of 15. The Orders activities were implied for the most part and, as such, the text shows us that Molly was an active member of the Order and was also going on missions - Harry hears about one specifically and it is implied that there are others.

That's what she should have done, IMO, if she were supposed to be an over protective mother. No mother is going to abandon her child in the middle of a battle.

You mean like Tonks did by leaving baby Teddy with her mother and coming to join the fight? Or all the parents that came back with Charlie and Slughorn to join the fight in the end? :huh:

I'm not entirely certain what your point is here because you are presenting a circular argument - you say it's negative for a mother to be portrayed as obsessive with her children, but that is how Molly should have been portrayed? :hmm: In this case, we see that Molly is not obsessed with her children and will do what is necessary to fight what is right to make the world a better place, IMO.

The reason why Molly fought Voldemort was most likely related to her children. This is the thing with Molly, she only gets motivated to do something when someone she loves is in danger. The other Order members are fighting for the good of all wizards while Molly is only focused on her own family.

I don't know where you're getting that to be honest. Molly put her family in danger by choosing to fight Voldemort for the good of the wizarding world. So did Arthur. The Weasley family as a whole put themselves out there and stood against Voldemort because they wanted the wizarding world to be a better place. That put all of them high on the list of targets because it made them blood traitors in the eyes of Voldemort and the Death Eaters. If Molly had only been focused on her own family, then she would not have been fighting at all - she would have been hiding or going along with what Voldemort was doing so they wouldn't be considered blood traitors and wouldn't be direct targets. And she certainly wouldn't have taken the risk of having Harry Potter in her home or showing any support for him if that were the case because associating with Harry also put her family in danger.

The text just does not support the assumption that Molly was obsessed with her family to that degree, IMO.

It was quite the opposite actually. Travers becomes suspicious when Hermione snaps at him which suggests that he isn't normally treated that way by Bellatrix.

That is not what is shown in the text.

“The Dark Lord forgives those who have served him most faithfully in the past,” said Hermione in a magnificent imitation of Bellatrix’s most contemptuous manner. “Perhaps your credit is not as good with him as mine is, Travers.”

Though the Death Eater looked offended, he also seemed less suspicious.

punx92

June 12th, 2009, 12:40 am

1. Favourite over-all character?
Although it is Hermione besides her its Tonks
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
I dont like any dark witches :P
3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Lily

Trixa

June 12th, 2009, 10:44 am

Of course, none of the other Death Eaters were willing to go to Azkaban as Bellatrix was - she stood alone there as well. Many of them were captured and unable to talk their way out - i.e. Dolohov, Rookwood, etc... - and some of them were killed fighting against that, but none of them went willingly like Bellatrix did.

I doubt she went willingly. She was captured and then didn't denounce Voldemort. But since we know that the Longbottom affair had been considered particularly heinous both by Crouch and by the other Aurors I doubt she was even given the chance to deny the whole thing.

And yet he is still not as loyal as Bellatrix. Bellatrix stands alone among the Death Eaters in that regard.
Why? There were nine other Death Eaters in Azkaban with her. Bellatrix never did anything for Voldemort that any other loyal Death Eater wouldn't have done.

That is another assumption - we can't say what Narcissa's skills were as they were never shown, IMO.
Even so, do we see Bellatrix even trying to physically stop her from going? The Bellatrix you're describing would have probably threaten to kill Draco herself if Narcissa went to Snape and thus betraying or at least disobeying Voldemort, not ask her nicely not to go and then follow her there.

And it was being willing to take the Unbreakable Vow that convinced Bellatrix that Snape was loyal to Voldemort and not working with Dumbledore against him - which was rather ironic all things considered.
Why? If he were working with Dumbledore, he wouldn't take a Vow to kill him (or at least according to what we knew at that time).

That is an assumption that is not supported by the text because we are not privy to every mission the Order goes on - Harry was not included in all of the Order's activities. If we followed that logic, then we would have to say that nobody in the Order was an active member because we only get accounts of a few of them doing one or two things - the rest is implied by the fact that they are Order members - same as Molly

Tonks, Kinglsey and Moody at least were pretty active members. Dumbledore was their leader and that's why he didn't participate, just like Voldemort didn't usually participate in the DEs missions either.

You mean like Tonks did by leaving baby Teddy with her mother and coming to join the fight?
Tonks left her kid at home, not in the Great Hall.

I'm not entirely certain what your point is here because you are presenting a circular argument - you say it's negative for a mother to be portrayed as obsessive with her children, but that is how Molly should have been portrayed?
But that wouldn't have obsessive of her, it would have been a normal behaviour for a mother. I agree that my argument is circular but Molly, to me, is such an inconsistently written character that I find it hard to get any grasp on her. First, we are supposed to believe that she is an overprotective mother. Yet whenever her children are going on a mission, she is never there even though she is an Order member as well. She obviously gets super-powerful if one of the kids are in danger and this is something the Order could put to great use. But again, she's never there.

I don't know where you're getting that to be honest. Molly put her family in danger by choosing to fight Voldemort for the good of the wizarding world. So did Arthur. The Weasley family as a whole put themselves out there and stood against Voldemort because they wanted the wizarding world to be a better place. That put all of them high on the list of targets because it made them blood traitors in the eyes of Voldemort and the Death Eaters. If Molly had only been focused on her own family, then she would not have been fighting at all - she would have been hiding or going along with what Voldemort was doing so they wouldn't be considered blood traitors and wouldn't be direct targets. And she certainly wouldn't have taken the risk of having Harry Potter in her home or showing any support for him if that were the case because associating with Harry also put her family in danger.

Their family had a long history of being blood traitors anyway so Voldemort's reign wouldn't have been good for them. In any case, I didn't say Molly was evil or that she had no problem with people being slaughtered here and there but you said it yourself that it is debatable whether or not she would have intervened between Bella and the girls had Ginny not been in danger as well. What does that say about her?

That is not what is shown in the text.

DH“The Dark Lord forgives those who have served him most faithfully in the past,” said Hermione in a magnificent imitation of Bellatrix’s most contemptuous manner. “Perhaps your credit is not as good with him as mine is, Travers.”

The text also says:

"Hermione had drawn herself up to her fullest height and said, with as much contemprt as she could muster, "and what do you want?"
Travers stopped in his tracks clearly affronted."

meesha1971

June 13th, 2009, 9:01 am

I doubt she went willingly. She was captured and then didn't denounce Voldemort. But since we know that the Longbottom affair had been considered particularly heinous both by Crouch and by the other Aurors I doubt she was even given the chance to deny the whole thing.

Actually, she did. That trial was shown in GOF when Harry first used the pensieve by accident. Bellatrix did not deny anything and proudly announced to the entire court that Voldemort would return and they would be rewarded because they alone tried to find him. She was proud of her actions and did not try to talk her way out of it at all. I'm not going to quote all three pages (GOF, pgs 594-596), but a couple of things from that trial

The dementors placed each of the four people in the four chairs with chained arms that now stood on the dungeon floor. There was a thickset man who stared blankly up at Crouch; a thinner and more nervous-looking man, whose eyes were darting around the crowd; a woman with thick, shining dark hair and heavily hooded eyes, who was sitting in the chained chair as though it were a throne; and a boy in his late teens, who looked nothing short of petrified. He was shivering, his straw-colored hair all over his face, his freckled skin milk-white. The wispy little witch beside Crouch began to rock backward and forward in her seat, whimpering into her handkerchief.

“No! Mother, no! I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, I didn’t know! Don’t send me there, don’t let him!”

The dementors were gliding back into the room. The boys’ three companions rose quietly from their seats; the woman with the heavy-lidded eyes looked up at Crouch and called, “The Dark Lord will rise again, Crouch! Throw us into Azkaban; we will wait! He will rise again and will come for us, he will reward us beyond any of his other supporters! We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!”

Crouch Jr. was begging and pleading the entire time, proclaiming his innocence. The other two men - I'm not sure which was Rodolphus and which was Rastaban because they weren't identified specifically as to which was which - did not demonstrate that same level of pride. One was very nervous and looking around in fear. The other was staring blankly - indicating that either the dementors had already begun to have an effect on him or he was resigned to his fate. Of the four, Bellatrix was the only one who demonstrated that she was proud of what they'd done and willing to go to Azkaban until Voldemort returned - though she certainly expected the other three to share her pride by including them in her statement, none of them actually showed that they did, IMO.

Why? There were nine other Death Eaters in Azkaban with her. Bellatrix never did anything for Voldemort that any other loyal Death Eater wouldn't have done.

Bellatrix did a lot of things that none of the other Death Eaters would have done willingly. What other Death Eater would have stood up to the Wizengamot to pride in what they'd done? There were nine other Death Eaters in Azkaban, but the difference between them and Bellatrix is that they didn't go there willingly or with pride.

Even so, do we see Bellatrix even trying to physically stop her from going? The Bellatrix you're describing would have probably threaten to kill Draco herself if Narcissa went to Snape and thus betraying or at least disobeying Voldemort, not ask her nicely not to go and then follow her there.

Actually, that would have been an empty threat because Voldemort was adamant that Draco take on that mission - and they both knew that. Bellatrix couldn't threaten Draco at that point any more than she could have personally gone after Harry because either act would have been betraying Voldemort.

Bellatrix did not ask Narcissa not to go nicely. She followed her and was insistent - ordering Narcissa to wait, etc... - and she did physically try to stop her by grabbing her. That was when Narcissa hexed her. After that, Bellatrix kept her distance. But she continued to try to stop Narcissa once they arrived - again ordering Narcissa to keep her silence and snarling at her - and only ceased once Snape made it clear that he already knew what the plan was so Bellatrix knew that Narcissa was not betraying Voldemort.

Why? If he were working with Dumbledore, he wouldn't take a Vow to kill him (or at least according to what we knew at that time).

That was the irony of it actually. Bellatrix viewed that act as a sign of complete loyalty to Voldemort because nobody would have expected Dumbledore to have ordered Snape to kill him because he was already dying.

Tonks, Kinglsey and Moody at least were pretty active members. Dumbledore was their leader and that's why he didn't participate, just like Voldemort didn't usually participate in the DEs missions either.

Actually, the only things we are shown Tonks, Kingsley, and Moody do for the Order is escort Harry to Grimmauld Place in OOTP and to the Burrow in DH. Tonks and Moody also join Molly in escorting the kids to Kings Cross to catch the Hogwarts express. The only other thing that is associated with the Order for Kingsley is him making sure that the Aurors did not catch Sirius - which was not actually a mission. We know that they were doing other things for the Order simply because they were members and they were all doing missions. Harry learns some specifics about how they were all taking turns to stand guard at Privet Dr. and, later, that they were all taking turns to stand guard at the DoM to prevent Voldemort from getting the prophecy, but the bulk of it is implied for the Order as a whole and Molly is included in that in the same manner.

Tonks left her kid at home, not in the Great Hall.

And Molly left her daughter in the Room of Requirement with instructions to stay there. She wanted Ginny to go home - or back to Aunt Muriel's rather since that's where they were staying at that point - but Lupin and Arthur talked her into letting Ginny stay in the Room of Requirement. Ginny defied her parents by taking advantage of Harry asking her to leave the Room of Requirement so he could change it to the hiding room and joining the fight after they had told her not to.

But that wouldn't have obsessive of her, it would have been a normal behaviour for a mother. I agree that my argument is circular but Molly, to me, is such an inconsistently written character that I find it hard to get any grasp on her. First, we are supposed to believe that she is an overprotective mother. Yet whenever her children are going on a mission, she is never there even though she is an Order member as well. She obviously gets super-powerful if one of the kids are in danger and this is something the Order could put to great use. But again, she's never there.

Normal behavior by whose definition? Mothers join the military and fight - leaving their children behind - just as fathers do. I remember a news story back during the Gulf war about a couple who were both in the military and left there six month old baby with the wife's mother while they both went to Saudi to fight in the war. How is that any different than Molly deciding to join the fight at Hogwarts and wanting Ginny to stay out of it? I'm a mother myself and if I were in Molly's position, I would do the same thing. Given the choice between letting a dictator take over and fighting to make the world a safer place for your children, I think a lot of mothers would make the same choice as Molly.

Molly was overprotective of her children, but she was also shown to accept that there was only so much she could protect them from as they got older. She didn't like it and she made it known that she didn't like it, but she accepted it.

The children were not given missions in OOTP - the twins, Ron, Ginny, Harry, and Hermione were not allowed to join the Order because they were all either underage and/or still in school. They went to the DoM in OOTP without permission and nobody knew about it. Snape suspected and contacted Headquarters, but the only ones there at that time were Sirius, Lupin, Moody, Tonks, and Kingsley. Time was of the essence so they left without contacting anyone else - Sirius delegating Kreacher the job of telling Dumbledore what had happened because they were expecting him to arrive that night. Dumbledore left to go there after he'd talked to Kreacher and got all that information from him - also without contacting anyone else. That was the only "mission" in OOTP and the kids were never supposed to embark on it and neither Arthur or Molly was contacted about what happened until after it was all over so neither of them was there.

There was no mission in HBP either - not for the kids. Dumbledore requested Lupin, Tonks, and Bill to patrol while he was away with Harry. They were the only Order members present - apart from the ones on staff at Hogwarts like McGonagall. Harry asked Ron and Hermione to gather up as many of the DA as they could to watch Snape without telling Dumbledore what he was going to do. The kids were not supposed to be out in the corridors - nor did anyone expect the Death Eaters to be able to get into Hogwarts like that. Lupin, Tonks, and Bill were there as a precaution in case they tried to get through the gates, but nobody expected them to enter from within the castle. There wasn't supposed to be a battle like that and the kids were not supposed to be involved in any of that regardless. Arthur, Molly, and Fleur were contacted after it was all over.

In DH, several of them participated in the Seven Potters - but they were all of age by then so Molly had no control over that. Arthur, Bill, Fleur, the twins, Ron, and Hermione participated as escorts along with Moody, Lupin, Tonks, Kingsley, Hagrid and Mundungus. Other people were assigned the task of waiting at the safe houses for them to arrive - Tonks' parents at their house and Molly and Ginny at the Burrow were the two we were shown - though Muriel's house was mentioned as one of the other locations. The other four locations were not mentioned or shown so we don't know who was waiting at those. That was their role in that mission - somebody had to be at those locations when they got to them. It made the most sense for Molly to wait for them at the Burrow rather than act as an escort because she was good with healing charms - if they ran into trouble, she would be needed to do any healing necessary.

None of those things preclude Molly being an active member of the Order, IMO. The Order was involved in a lot of other things that Harry was not part of and never knew the details of. All of the Order members - including Molly - took turns standing guard at Privet Dr. during the four weeks that Harry stayed there in OOTP. All of the Order members - including Molly - took turns standing guard at the DoM to try and prevent Voldemort from getting the prophecy. Charlie stayed in Romania to try to recruit more foreign wizards. Bill was working on trying to find out where the Goblins stood on the situation. Arthur, Tonks, and Kingsley kept an eye on things at the Ministry - and Kingsley made sure the Aurors were looking in the wrong places for Sirius. They were all trying to inform as many people as possible that Voldemort had returned without drawing too much attention to themselves. There were a lot of things going on with the Order that Harry never knew about and Molly was part of that. Just because Harry didn't know all the details about everything they were doing doesn't change that because there is enough information given in the text to show that all of the Order members were actively involved, IMO.

Their family had a long history of being blood traitors anyway so Voldemort's reign wouldn't have been good for them. In any case, I didn't say Molly was evil or that she had no problem with people being slaughtered here and there but you said it yourself that it is debatable whether or not she would have intervened between Bella and the girls had Ginny not been in danger as well. What does that say about her?

I agree that it is debatable, but my stand on that debate would be that Molly would have gone after Bellatrix to protect any of them if Bellatrix had almost hit them with a killing curse. I do think that she was more adamant about dueling Bellatrix by herself because it was Ginny, but I also consider that a natural reaction for any mother. Molly was also protective of Harry and Hermione, but she more readily accepted their involvement because they were of age - same with Ron. Ginny was still underage - the youngest of Molly's children - so her response to that was very realistic, IMO. It was also implied that Bellatrix had something to do with Fred being killed with Bellatrix taunting Molly about that so it was even more personal for her, IMO.

The Weasleys had a long standing history of being blood traitors because they always stood up for what they believed in regardless of the danger it put them in. Molly's twin brothers - Fabian and Gideon - were killed during the first war, but that didn't stop Molly from standing up for her beliefs. And that was my point. If Molly were so obsessive about her children that her life centered around them to the exclusion of all else, she would never have done that, IMO. She would have hidden or pretended to go along with the pure-blood supremacists all along so her family wouldn't be considered blood traitors. She would never have taken the risk of her family being associated with Harry Potter or allowed him to stay in her home. She would have told the boys on that first day when the twins announced they had met Harry that they should avoid him. As I see it, Molly standing up for her beliefs regardless of the danger that meant for her family shows that she was not obsessive like that.

She was overprotective and worried about her children, but considering the circumstances, I think her reactions were normal. Harry encountered Voldemort in his first year - and Ron and Hermione put themselves in danger to help him get through the obstacles to do so. They had to deal with the basilisk in Harry's second year and discovered Ginny had been possessed by Voldemort through the diary. They believed Sirius Black was one of Voldemort's servants and trying to kill Harry in his third year and the public version of what happened that night in the Shrieking Shack was that Snape had saved the trio from Sirius - not to mention the night that Ron had woken up to see Sirius standing over him with a knife. Harry was nearly killed by Voldemort in his fourth year and they discovered that a Death Eater had infiltrated Hogwarts in the guise of Moody to enter him in that tournament. By OOTP, Voldemort had returned and it was only a matter of time before the war started up again in full and half her family was in the Order with the other half wanting to join up even though they were still in school and/or underage. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, and Luna were almost killed at the Ministry that year as well. The war is in full swing in HBP and Ron and Ginny end up in a major battle with Death Eaters that year along with Bill, who was grievously injured by Greyback. What mother wouldn't be overprotective in circumstances like that? That's not obsession - it's a normal reaction to extreme circumstances, IMO.

The text also says:

"Hermione had drawn herself up to her fullest height and said, with as much contemprt as she could muster, "and what do you want?"
Travers stopped in his tracks clearly affronted."

I would expect anyone to be affronted - particularly with Bellatrix. That was par for the course with her, IMO. Travers was suspicious because he'd heard about what happened at Malfoy Manor and thought Bellatrix was laid up with the Malfoys - which was true and a big oversight on the trio's part with their plan. Hermione's reaction to the man begging to know about his children was not consistent with how Bellatrix would have reacted and Hermione had to cover that with Travers. He was offended by the way she talked to him - which was also mentioned in the quote I provided - but that also made him less suspicious. That - and what we see of Bellatrix with the Death Eaters in other instances - tells us that it was normal for her to be condescending to the other Death Eaters, IMO. She saw herself as superior to all of them, IMO. Travers didn't like the way Bellatrix treated him, but he was clearly used to her treating him like that, IMO.

Trixa

June 13th, 2009, 12:41 pm

Actually, she did. That trial was shown in GOF when Harry first used the pensieve by accident. Bellatrix did not deny anything and proudly announced to the entire court that Voldemort would return and they would be rewarded because they alone tried to find him. She was proud of her actions and did not try to talk her way out of it at all. I'm not going to quote all three pages (GOF, pgs 594-596), but a couple of things from that trial

Yes, I know what it says but I think that saying that the Longbottom affair got Crouch really angry and then suggesting that Bellatrix had been given the opportunity to deny her involvement with Voldemort doesn't make much sense to me. Both the Aurors and Crouch seemed pretty anxious to lock the four away for life and throw away the key.

The other was staring blankly - indicating that either the dementors had already begun to have an effect on him or he was resigned to his fate. Of the four, Bellatrix was the only one who demonstrated that she was proud of what they'd done and willing to go to Azkaban until Voldemort returned - though she certainly expected the other three to share her pride by including them in her statement, none of them actually showed that they did, IMO.

That says something about Bellatrix's strength of character and not so much about Voldemort himself. Bellatrix wasn't afraid to stand up for her beliefs and she was brave enough to suffer the consequences. This has nothing to do with Voldemort as her being in Azkaban doesn't help him one bit. She only went to Azkaban so that he would consider her loyal enough to grant her a position of power upon his return. She even says that she expects a reward.

Actually, that would have been an empty threat because Voldemort was adamant that Draco take on that mission - and they both knew that. Bellatrix couldn't threaten Draco at that point any more than she could have personally gone after Harry because either act would have been betraying Voldemort.

Bellatrix has never been the most rational person and even so I was only using Draco as an example to make a point.

Bellatrix did not ask Narcissa not to go nicely. She followed her and was insistent - ordering Narcissa to wait, etc... - and she did physically try to stop her by grabbing her.
So the "prodigiously skilled witch of no conscience" tries to stop her sister from betraying "her beloved master" by grabbing her arm? Then she lets her go and even follows her there involving herself in the betrayal. It just doesn't add up.

But she continued to try to stop Narcissa once they arrived - again ordering Narcissa to keep her silence and snarling at her - and only ceased once Snape made it clear that he already knew what the plan was so Bellatrix knew that Narcissa was not betraying Voldemort.

She didn't order anything, she told her that she should be keeping her silence. She was sitting there drinking wine, she wasn't exactly atacking anyone or trying to drag Narcissa away.

Actually, the only things we are shown Tonks, Kingsley, and Moody do for the Order is escort Harry to Grimmauld Place in OOTP and to the Burrow in DH.
And fighting at the Ministry, at the wedding and in the final battle. I considered the escort at the beginning of DH to be a mission since it was rather dangerous after all.

Molly was overprotective of her children, but she was also shown to accept that there was only so much she could protect them from as they got older. She didn't like it and she made it known that she didn't like it, but she accepted it.
Why should she accept it? She was an Order member and had every right to be involved and participate in missions.

They went to the DoM in OOTP without permission and nobody knew about it. Snape suspected and contacted Headquarters, but the only ones there at that time were Sirius, Lupin, Moody, Tonks, and Kingsley. Time was of the essence so they left without contacting anyone else - Sirius delegating Kreacher the job of telling Dumbledore what had happened because they were expecting him to arrive that night. Dumbledore left to go there after he'd talked to Kreacher and got all that information from him - also without contacting anyone else. That was the only "mission" in OOTP and the kids were never supposed to embark on it and neither Arthur or Molly was contacted about what happened until after it was all over so neither of them was there.

I was talking about the way Molly was written. JKR could have made her fight at the Ministry and yet she didn't. Then in DH she expects the readers to believe that Molly is actually poweful enough to defeat one of the most powerful DEs without giving us any reasons to think so.

There were a lot of things going on with the Order that Harry never knew about and Molly was part of that. Just because Harry didn't know all the details about everything they were doing doesn't change that because there is enough information given in the text to show that all of the Order members were actively involved, IMO.

How so? Molly stays and guards the Grimmauld Place once. That's all she does. Why? If she is so powerful then how come she isn't among the main members of the Order?

She was overprotective and worried about her children, but considering the circumstances, I think her reactions were normal. Harry encountered Voldemort in his first year - and Ron and Hermione put themselves in danger to help him get through the obstacles to do so. They had to deal with the basilisk in Harry's second year and discovered Ginny had been possessed by Voldemort through the diary. They believed Sirius Black was one of Voldemort's servants and trying to kill Harry in his third year and the public version of what happened that night in the Shrieking Shack was that Snape had saved the trio from Sirius - not to mention the night that Ron had woken up to see Sirius standing over him with a knife. Harry was nearly killed by Voldemort in his fourth year and they discovered that a Death Eater had infiltrated Hogwarts in the guise of Moody to enter him in that tournament. By OOTP, Voldemort had returned and it was only a matter of time before the war started up again in full and half her family was in the Order with the other half wanting to join up even though they were still in school and/or underage. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, and Luna were almost killed at the Ministry that year as well. The war is in full swing in HBP and Ron and Ginny end up in a major battle with Death Eaters that year along with Bill, who was grievously injured by Greyback. What mother wouldn't be overprotective in circumstances like that? That's not obsession - it's a normal reaction to extreme circumstances, IMO.

All the more reason for Molly to be an active Order member.

She saw herself as superior to all of them, IMO. Travers didn't like the way Bellatrix treated him, but he was clearly used to her treating him like that, IMO.
Why approach someone who treats you with contempt? The Death Eaters are probably aware of their hierarchy so her saying that isn't rude, it's simply stating a fact and something that Travers already knows anyway.

Given the choice between letting a dictator take over and fighting to make the world a safer place for your children, I think a lot of mothers would make the same choice as Molly.

That's why I said that she is only motivated by keeping her family safe. Molly is just like Narcissa in this aspect. Narcissa's actions throughtout the books have been motivated by one thing: Draco. It's the same with Molly. Narcissa picked a side as well even though that would come to endanger Draco in time, and so did Molly and her family. Narcissa didn't want to see the world ruled by Muggleborns just like Molly didn't want to see the world ruled by Voldemort. It would have been easier for both of them to hide away somewhere but they both had principles. However...Narcissa switched sides on Draco's behalf. Would Molly have done the same? What would Molly have done if Dumbledore had chosen Ron to be "the pig for slaughter"?

meesha1971

June 13th, 2009, 2:55 pm

Yes, I know what it says but I think that saying that the Longbottom affair got Crouch really angry and then suggesting that Bellatrix had been given the opportunity to deny her involvement with Voldemort doesn't make much sense to me. Both the Aurors and Crouch seemed pretty anxious to lock the four away for life and throw away the key.

:huh: Bellatrix had just as much opportunity as Crouch Jr. to deny her guilt at that trial, but she didn't. While Crouch Jr. was crying and swearing he was innocent, she sat there like a queen on a throne, proud of what she'd done and never once denied it or begged for her freedom. It makes sense for Bellatrix's character because she was in love with Voldemort - her warped version of love anyway - and had no remorse for what she'd done to the Longbottoms in her attempt to find him.

That says something about Bellatrix's strength of character and not so much about Voldemort himself. Bellatrix wasn't afraid to stand up for her beliefs and she was brave enough to suffer the consequences. This has nothing to do with Voldemort as her being in Azkaban doesn't help him one bit. She only went to Azkaban so that he would consider her loyal enough to grant her a position of power upon his return. She even says that she expects a reward.

Except she wasn't standing up for her beliefs there - just bragging about how they were the most loyal to Voldemort because they were the only ones who tried to find him. Bellatrix is criminally insane - she's not going to express her love with hearts and flowers - torturing the Longbottoms to try and find Voldemort was her way of showing her love and loyalty to him.

So the "prodigiously skilled witch of no conscience" tries to stop her sister from betraying "her beloved master" by grabbing her arm? Then she lets her go and even follows her there involving herself in the betrayal. It just doesn't add up.

There was no betrayal and, therefore, no reason for Bellatrix to resort to anything further than that. Snape already knew about the plan so it was not forbidden for Narcissa to discuss it with him. And the Unbreakable Vow complied with the orders that Voldemort had given Snape already so there was no betrayal there either.

She didn't order anything, she told her that she should be keeping her silence. She was sitting there drinking wine, she wasn't exactly atacking anyone or trying to drag Narcissa away.

Snarling "You ought to hold your tongue" and "You were told not to talk, so hold your silence!" are orders, IMO.

Bellatrix was standing behind Narcissa - perfect position to physically stop Narcissa if she felt it necessary - snarling at her sister and glowering at Snape. Then she started attacking Snape - which also went towards stopping Narcissa from talking to him. She pointed out all the reasons she believed that he couldn't be trusted as much to convince Narcissa to keep her silence as for her own satisfaction. But that worked to Narcissa's advantage because it turned out that Snape was already in on the plan so she was free to discuss it with him without fear of repercussion. Once Bellatrix was aware that it would not be a betrayal to talk to Snape, she stopped trying to prevent Narcissa from saying anything - though she did mock Narcissa for being upset concerned about Draco instead of proud that he'd been given an assignment by Voldemort.

And fighting at the Ministry, at the wedding and in the final battle. I considered the escort at the beginning of DH to be a mission since it was rather dangerous after all.

Molly also fought at the wedding and in the final battle and had a role in Harry being escorted to the Burrow. Somebody had to stay at the Burrow to be there when they arrived - who better than Molly, who was adept at healing charms?

Why should she accept it? She was an Order member and had every right to be involved and participate in missions.

What does Molly accepting that she couldn't prevent her children from becoming involved at all have to do with her participating in missions? :huh: She did participate in missions and was an active member of the Order according to the text.

I was talking about the way Molly was written. JKR could have made her fight at the Ministry and yet she didn't. Then in DH she expects the readers to believe that Molly is actually poweful enough to defeat one of the most powerful DEs without giving us any reasons to think so.

We don't need any reason to think so prior to seeing her do it - that type of thing only needs to be shown once. That's called the element of surprise. Having Molly show up at the Ministry wouldn't have fit within the context of the story in OOTP. It was necessary for Arthur and Molly to be kept out of that so Molly charging at Bellatrix in the final battle would come as a surprise - both to Harry and Bellatrix. It was unexpected, but Bellatrix quickly realizes that Molly is more than a match for her. If Harry had witnessed Molly dueling before - or she had duelled Bellatrix before - there would have been no surprise there - and Bellatrix would probably already have been dead in that event because Molly would have killed her then. It makes more sense to save that for the final battle because it had more impact that way, IMO.

Molly was shown to be a very skilled duelist there so I have no problem in believing that whatsoever. I don't see any reason to question what is shown very clearly in the text just because Molly's fighting had occurred off page prior to that.

How so? Molly stays and guards the Grimmauld Place once. That's all she does. Why? If she is so powerful then how come she isn't among the main members of the Order?

Again, that assumption is not supported by the text. Molly also stood guard over Harry at Privet Dr. - all the Order members took turns doing that. She also stood guard at the DoM to try to prevent Voldemort from getting the prophecy - again, all the Order members took turns doing that. Molly was one of the main members of the Order and her participation was shown and indicated in the same manner as every other member of the Order.

All the more reason for Molly to be an active Order member.

Which is precisely why she was an active Order member, IMO.

Why approach someone who treats you with contempt? The Death Eaters are probably aware of their hierarchy so her saying that isn't rude, it's simply stating a fact and something that Travers already knows anyway.

That would be called sucking up to Voldemort's "best lieutenant" in hopes of promoting himself. Bellatrix was known for treating those she saw as beneath her with contempt and pointing out her superiority over them by reminding them of her position with Voldemort - we see her do that on page. That's why Hermione chose that tactic to make Travers less suspicious.

That's why I said that she is only motivated by keeping her family safe. Molly is just like Narcissa in this aspect. Narcissa's actions throughtout the books have been motivated by one thing: Draco. It's the same with Molly. Narcissa picked a side as well even though that would come to endanger Draco in time, and so did Molly and her family. Narcissa didn't want to see the world ruled by Muggleborns just like Molly didn't want to see the world ruled by Voldemort. It would have been easier for both of them to hide away somewhere but they both had principles. However...Narcissa switched sides on Draco's behalf. Would Molly have done the same? What would Molly have done if Dumbledore had chosen Ron to be "the pig for slaughter"?

Actually, Narcissa picked a side believing that Draco would not be harmed because he was a pure-blood, Lucius son and - up until OOTP - Lucius had a very good standing with Voldemort. Nor was Draco in any danger from the Ministry or the Order because, unlike the Death Eaters, they didn't use people's children as weapons. When Lucius fell from grace, Draco was put in danger because Voldemort decided to use him to punish Lucius. Still, Narcissa never switches sides - she simply seeks ways to regain Voldemort's favor and protect Draco without going against his orders. And when it becomes clear that Voldemort is going to lose, she drops out all together - not fighting for either side, but only trying to find Draco. Harry's life didn't matter to her and she wasn't trying to help him - she needed him to be dead so she could get into the castle to find Draco so she said he was. Harry figured that out for himself. Narcissa wasn't worried about the world being ruled by muggleborns - that wasn't a concern among the Death Eaters - they simply wanted to eradicate them from the wizarding world completely because they saw them as inferior. So I wouldn't say that Narcissa had any principles at all. :no:

Molly, on the other hand, had a lot of reasons for joining the fight against Voldemort. Making the world a better place for her children - along with everyone else in the wizarding world - was only one of them. Protecting the rights of muggles and muggleborns was another. Getting rid of an evil dictator, putting a stop to the corruption within the Ministry - Molly was not fighting for only one reason and, unlike Narcissa, her and Arthur choosing to join the Order did put their children in danger because the Death Eaters had no qualm about using people's children as weapons. Sending Ginny to Hogwarts to attend school in DH was a major risk by itself because Voldemort had taken over - and they ended up pulling her out during the Easter holiday so the Death Eaters couldn't take her as punishment to the Weasleys after the trio had been captured and they knew Ron was helping Harry rather than at home, sick with spattergoit. I would say that Molly had principles and she stood by those principles - choosing to fight with the Order - in spite of the risk it meant for her family. Where Narcissa dropped everything the minute it appeared they were going to lose and focused only on finding her son, Molly continued to fight for what she believed in after losing one of her sons and knowing that more of her children could be killed in that fight.

Trixa

June 13th, 2009, 3:31 pm

Bellatrix had just as much opportunity as Crouch Jr. to deny her guilt at that trial, but she didn't. While Crouch Jr. was crying and swearing he was innocent, she sat there like a queen on a throne, proud of what she'd done and never once denied it or begged for her freedom.
Crouch Sr didn't care about his son's crying and begging so why would he have cared about Bellatrix's? I agree with you that she wouldn't have denied it anyway but she wasn't given the chance to do it either.

Except she wasn't standing up for her beliefs there - just bragging about how they were the most loyal to Voldemort because they were the only ones who tried to find him. Bellatrix is criminally insane - she's not going to express her love with hearts and flowers - torturing the Longbottoms to try and find Voldemort was her way of showing her love and loyalty to him.
She was trying to find him, not show her love and loyalty. She went to Azkaban to show her loyalty so that when Voldemort returned he would reward her and the others.

There was no betrayal and, therefore, no reason for Bellatrix to resort to anything further than that.
You just said Bellatrix was trying to stop Narcissa from betraying Voldemort and now you're saying there was no betrayal in the first place?

Once Bellatrix was aware that it would not be a betrayal to talk to Snape, she stopped trying to prevent Narcissa from saying anything - though she did mock Narcissa for being upset concerned about Draco instead of proud that he'd been given an assignment by Voldemort.

Making the Unbreakable Vow was betrayal or at least disobedience since Snape vowed to protect someone the Dark Lord intended to kill. If you look at their sneaky behaviour in that scene (with Snape drawing the curtains and always looking over his shoulders) it's clear that they were doing something they weren't supposed to be doing.

What does Molly accepting that she couldn't prevent her children from becoming involved at all have to do with her participating in missions?
I didn't say anything about preventing her children from getting involved, I said that she shouldn't so readily accept she can't protect them when in fact she can.

We don't need any reason to think so prior to seeing her do it - that type of thing only needs to be shown once. That's called the element of surprise. Having Molly show up at the Ministry wouldn't have fit within the context of the story in OOTP. It was necessary for Arthur and Molly to be kept out of that so Molly charging at Bellatrix in the final battle would come as a surprise - both to Harry and Bellatrix
It would have come as a surprise anyway because everyone expected Neville to do it. Molly being skilled does not equal her being the one to defeat Bellatrix. Kingsley was skilled as well yet he wasn't the one to do it. We are given no reasons to believe that Molly would be capable of doing something like that. In fact we are shown quite the opposite.

Molly was shown to be a very skilled duelist there so I have no problem in believing that whatsoever. I don't see any reason to question what is shown very clearly in the text just because Molly's fighting had occurred off page prior to that.
What do you mean off page? Molly is a character not a real person. If she didn't fight on page, then where did she fight?

Which is precisely why she was an active Order member, IMO.
She wasn't an active member like Tonks, Kingsley or Moody though. She had one mission and it didn't even involve any fighting.

That would be called sucking up to Voldemort's "best lieutenant" in hopes of promoting himself. Bellatrix was known for treating those she saw as beneath her with contempt and pointing out her superiority over them by reminding them of her position with Voldemort - we see her do that on page. That's why Hermione chose that tactic to make Travers less suspicious.

No Death Eater would consider Bellatrix to be Voldemort's best lieutenant unless they missed the meeting in the first chapter of DH. It is Snape Travers should be sucking up to, not Bellatrix.

Actually, Narcissa picked a side believing that Draco would not be harmed because he was a pure-blood, Lucius son and - up until OOTP - Lucius had a very good standing with Voldemort.
It must have occured to Narcissa that Lucius would fail Voldemort at least once during his Death Eater years. I really don't think Narcissa ever trusted or liked Voldemort.

Molly, on the other hand, had a lot of reasons for joining the fight against Voldemort. Making the world a better place for her children - along with everyone else in the wizarding world - was only one of them. Protecting the rights of muggles and muggleborns was another.
Taking into consideration Molly's attitude towards Muggles, I don't think she really cares about them or Muggleborns.

So I wouldn't say that Narcissa had any principles at all.
Narcissa had the same beliefs the other DEs did. That's why I compared her to Molly. They both seem equally active within their organization and equally preoccupied with their children. Narcissa is another character whose existence is centered around her child and she doesn't seem to have much else besides him either. I am quite sure that Molly would have acted just like Narcissa if one of her sons was in danger. I'm not sure if we are supposed to see Narcissa as a role model, like we see Molly, but knowing JKR's fondness of mothers we probably should.

meesha1971

June 13th, 2009, 4:35 pm

Crouch Sr didn't care about his son's crying and begging so why would he have cared about Bellatrix's? I agree with you that she wouldn't have denied it anyway but she wasn't given the chance to do it either.

The fact that they were brought into the room and given a trial gave them a chance to deny the charges against them if they chose to do so. How Crouch responded to his son is irrelevant. If Bellatrix had wanted to renounce Voldemort, that was her opportunity to do so. She had no intention of doing so because she was proud of what she had done.

She was trying to find him, not show her love and loyalty. She went to Azkaban to show her loyalty so that when Voldemort returned he would reward her and the others.

Trying to find him was also about showing her love and loyalty. Voldemort considered the ones who did not try to find him less loyal and punished them. The fact that Bellatrix was caught and sent to Azkaban only added to that - the important aspect to Voldemort was that she tried to find him.

You just said Bellatrix was trying to stop Narcissa from betraying Voldemort and now you're saying there was no betrayal in the first place?

I'm saying that Bellatrix thought it would be a betrayal because she was not aware that Snape was in on the plan. Once she became aware that Snape knew about the plan and was part of it, she knew that Narcissa was not betraying Voldemort so she stopped trying to prevent her from talking to Snape about it.

Making the Unbreakable Vow was betrayal or at least disobedience since Snape vowed to protect someone the Dark Lord intended to kill. If you look at their sneaky behaviour in that scene (with Snape drawing the curtains and always looking over his shoulders) it's clear that they were doing something they weren't supposed to be doing.

Actually, it didn't. Voldemort was willing to give Draco the chance to atone for his father's failures. He did not expect Draco to succeed, but if he did, he would be rewarded and Lucius would be forgiven - Snape pointed that out to Narcissa in Spinner's End. If Draco failed, it would serve as punishment to Lucius, but Voldemort didn't really care which way it went as long as Dumbledore was killed in the end.

The Vow itself did not go against Voldemort's orders in any way because Voldemort never told Snape that Draco had to die or that he couldn't help him or that he couldn't watch over him while he made his attempt. Voldemort's orders were simply that Draco was to try first and, if he failed, then Snape was to do it for him - which is exactly what Narcissa asked of Snape with the Vow. So the Vow was not a betrayal either because it complied with Voldemort's orders.

Their "sneaky" behavior is more likely due to the fact that they are Death Eaters discussing a murder plot - Snape pulling the curtains and making sure nobody was outside was more likely a show for Bellatrix and Narcissa that he was looking out for Aurors or Order members. He was a double agent so the potential of an Order member showing up at his house could not be discounted.

I didn't say anything about preventing her children from getting involved, I said that she shouldn't so readily accept she can't protect them when in fact she can.

Once they were of age, the choice was up to them. Molly couldn't stop her children from getting involved - which was what she wanted to do in OOTP. She didn't want any of them - including Fred and George, who were of age - to be involved with the Order at all at that point. She had to accept that she could not stop Fred and George and she couldn't prevent Harry from becoming involved because he was the center of it - and there was no way to stop Harry from sharing everything with Ron and Hermione. She didn't like that, but she accepted it.

It would have come as a surprise anyway because everyone expected Neville to do it. Molly being skilled does not equal her being the one to defeat Bellatrix. Kingsley was skilled as well yet he wasn't the one to do it. We are given no reasons to believe that Molly would be capable of doing something like that. In fact we are shown quite the opposite.

Harry never expected Neville to do it - neither did Bellatrix for that matter. Neville was a misdirection - there was never any intention for him to face Bellatrix because the plan was always for him to face Voldemort as well and kill Nagini. If Harry had witnessed Molly fighting, then that misdirection would not have worked - particularly if Molly had fought with Bellatrix prior to the final battle.

What do you mean off page? Molly is a character not a real person. If she didn't fight on page, then where did she fight?

There are a lot of events that happen in the story off page because it is not feasible for Harry to witness everything - he could not be everywhere at once. The Order members taking turns to stand guard over the prophecy was something that occurred off page. Ron and Hermione going into the chamber to get basilisk fangs happened off page. Neville, Ginny, and Luna reforming the DA and all the things they did in that capacity at Hogwarts in DH happened off page. All of the Order meetings occurred off page. Kreacher injuring Buckbeak so Sirius wouldn't be around when Harry contacted Grimmauld Place happened off page. The majority of the fighting in the final battle happened off page because Harry wasn't around to witness all of it.

That's true for any story. There are events that are shown on page and there are events that occur off page that are either indicated through some other action or simply told. Molly's missions with the Order occurred off page - Sirius telling the trio that Molly was on a mission is what tells us that she was an active member of the Order and going on missions like everyone else. We only need to hear about the one to know that there were others. That's how writing works - it's not feasible to show every single detail regarding every single character and keep the plot moving at a reasonable pace. Some things have to happen off page.

She wasn't an active member like Tonks, Kingsley or Moody though. She had one mission and it didn't even involve any fighting.

She had a lot of missions - Harry just never found out what all of them were. He knows that she took several turns in standing guard at Privet Dr. because all of the Order members were doing that for the entire four weeks that he was there. He knows that she took several turns in standing guard at the DoM for the same reason - all of the Order members were doing that for that entire school year. She fought at the wedding when the Death Eaters attacked and she fought in the final battle with the rest of her family. Just because Harry didn't witness it, doesn't mean it didn't happen - there are numerous indicators given on page to show that Molly was an active member of the Order on the same level as Arthur, Tonks, Lupin, etc...

No Death Eater would consider Bellatrix to be Voldemort's best lieutenant unless they missed the meeting in the first chapter of DH. It is Snape Travers should be sucking up to, not Bellatrix.

Bellatrix was identified as Voldemort's "best lieutenant" on page when she died - both by Harry acknowledging it and Voldemort's reaction to that. And Travers behavior acknowledged that when Hermione used that to make him less suspicious. If it wasn't true, then he wouldn't have been less suspicious when Hermione said that. He didn't like it and if offended him, but he knew it was true.

It must have occured to Narcissa that Lucius would fail Voldemort at least once during his Death Eater years. I really don't think Narcissa ever trusted or liked Voldemort.

I would have to disagree. The Malfoys were too arrogant to consider failure, IMO. They saw themselves as superior and had convinced themselves that they would be among Voldemort's favorites because of that, IMO. Lucius' fall from grace was a shock to them - but they remain certain that they can find a way to regain their position throughout DH.

Taking into consideration Molly's attitude towards Muggles, I don't think she really cares about them or Muggleborns.

Molly never had any problem with muggles or muggleborns. She didn't understand muggle ways and didn't see any point in learning them because she didn't need any of that because she was a witch, but she did not hate them or agree with people like the Malfoys that they should be tortured or killed just because they were muggles.

She took Hermione into her home and treated her well just as she did Harry. She took care of Hermione for the entire summer in OOTP when they were all staying at Grimmauld Place. She was protective of her very much like she was her other children and Harry.

So I would have to say that Molly did care. She wouldn't have joined the Order and fought against Voldemort the way she did - putting her family in danger in the process - if she didn't care, IMO.

Narcissa had the same beliefs the other DEs did. That's why I compared her to Molly. They both seem equally active within their organization and equally preoccupied with their children. Narcissa is another character whose existence is centered around her child and she doesn't seem to have much else besides him either. I am quite sure that Molly would have acted just like Narcissa if one of her sons was in danger. I'm not sure if we are supposed to see Narcissa as a role model, like we see Molly, but knowing JKR's fondness of mothers we probably should.

I would have to disagree because we see Molly do the exact opposite of Narcissa in DH. As I said before, where Narcissa dropped everything the minute it appeared Voldemort was going to lose and focused entirely on finding Draco, Molly continued to fight even after one of her sons had been killed and knowing that more of her children could be killed - even after Ginny was almost killed - and even when they believed Harry had died and Voldemort had won. Molly continued to fight in spite of the fact that her children were in danger no matter what the odds seemed to be.

I think Narcissa serves as an example of a horrible mother - the correlation is made between Narcissa and Petunia in regards to the damage they inflict on their sons by spoiling them rotten. Molly is just the opposite in that she serves as an example of a good mother, IMO. There are no similarities between Narcissa and Molly that I can see - they are complete opposites in terms of their parenting styles, their values and beliefs, and strength of character, IMO.

Trixa

June 13th, 2009, 5:19 pm

I'm saying that Bellatrix thought it would be a betrayal because she was not aware that Snape was in on the plan. Once she became aware that Snape knew about the plan and was part of it, she knew that Narcissa was not betraying Voldemort so she stopped trying to prevent her from talking to Snape about it.

Yes, and I said that a fanatical Bellatrix who didn't care about her sister would have employed violence to try to stop her from going to Snape which she didn't.
Also, a fanatical Bellatrix would have never believed that Voldemort could be wrong about Snape.
Their "sneaky" behavior is more likely due to the fact that they are Death Eaters discussing a murder plot - Snape pulling the curtains and making sure nobody was outside was more likely a show for Bellatrix and Narcissa that he was looking out for Aurors or Order members. He was a double agent so the potential of an Order member showing up at his house could not be discounted.

It's a possible scenario just like mine was. We can only speculate about his reasons for doing so.

Harry never expected Neville to do it - neither did Bellatrix for that matter.
The readers obviously expected that to happen and it would have made more sense than having Molly do it, IMO, not in terms of power but in terms of poetic justice. JKR set up an antagonism between Neville and Bella which she never completed.

If Harry had witnessed Molly fighting, then that misdirection would not have worked
Why not? Like I said before people were surprised that Neville didn't do it, not that Molly was capable enough to do it. It is also quite clear that what happened didn't have anything to do with Molly being more powerful or skilled but simply more motivated and angry.

She had a lot of missions - Harry just never found out what all of them were.
What missions were these? I don't remember but I don't even think Molly was in the Order during the first war.

She took Hermione into her home and treated her well just as she did Harry.
She called Hermione a "scarlet woman" because of an article written by an infamous liar. Molly even lectures Mr Diggory on believing Rita's lies yet she believes them herself or at least did so that time.

I think Narcissa serves as an example of a horrible mother - the correlation is made between Narcissa and Petunia in regards to the damage they inflict on their sons by spoiling them rotten. Molly is just the opposite in that she serves as an example of a good mother, IMO. There are no similarities between Narcissa and Molly that I can see - they are complete opposites in terms of their parenting styles, their values and beliefs, and strength of character, IMO
Well, Molly is definitely a better person than Narcissa but I still think a paralell can be drawn between them. Their life styles certainly seem similar. Narcissa abandoned Voldemort because he was putting Draco in danger. Molly would have done the same thing to Dumbledore had he been a threat to one of her children. They both have a cause that they believe in though it seems to be that both Narcissa and Molly sort of went with the flow in this aspect. Narcissa was surrounded by people who served Voldemort and decided to do herself and the same thing probably applies to Molly. I do not believe that any of them was as passionate about her cause as Bellatrix was about hers. Narcissa did spoil her child and Molly does quite the opposite by making them wear second hand robes and all that. I wouldn't say that Narcissa is a horrible mother. I think they were both on the same level when it comes to motherhood though in different ways.
Why do you feel that Molly has a stronger character?

wickedwickedboy

June 13th, 2009, 9:43 pm

Well, Molly is definitely a better person than Narcissa but I still think a paralell can be drawn between them. Their life styles certainly seem similar. Narcissa abandoned Voldemort because he was putting Draco in danger. Molly would have done the same thing to Dumbledore had he been a threat to one of her children.

I would have to agree with Meesha. The conclusion here is correct, but it is based on a non-canon premise, imo. Molly would never ally herself with a person like Voldemort - that was what Narcissa did and why she found herself having to betray Voldemort in the forest. The outcome of what you propose is that Molly would have lied to Dumbledore in an attempt to give Voldemort and the dark side the win, in order to save one of her children. I disagree.

They both have a cause that they believe in though it seems to be that both Narcissa and Molly sort of went with the flow in this aspect. Narcissa was surrounded by people who served Voldemort and decided to do herself and the same thing probably applies to Molly. I do not believe that any of them was as passionate about her cause as Bellatrix was about hers.

If you mean neither of them was crazy, I agree. :lol:. Bella lost it when she went to Azkaban I guess and was clinically close to insane, imo. However, I disagree that Molly was like Narcissa. Narcissa didn't take the mark, did not go out and do deeds for Voldy - but rather supported her family in that way. Molly actually worked for the Order - going out on assignments and such (see OOTP). She supported the Order at #12G also, and attended all meetings, not because they were held in her home (like Narcissa) but because she wished to participate, imo.

Narcissa did spoil her child and Molly does quite the opposite by making them wear second hand robes and all that. I wouldn't say that Narcissa is a horrible mother. I think they were both on the same level when it comes to motherhood though in different ways. Why do you feel that Molly has a stronger character?

I can't answer for Meesha, but I do feel that Molly was shown to have the stronger character and a better mother as well. Draco wasn't only spoiled, but being taught poor values - values that Narcissa was aware were not mainstream to society and could land her son in Azkaban (she'd seen the whole 1st war first hand with her hubby in the thick of things). Narcissa too was ready to give up the ghost - any ghost - in order to save her son. She'd be on Voldy's side, Dumbledore's side or Santa Claus' side if it meant Draco would be safe - and that to me shows a weakness in character. She didn't have enough love to spread around - only to a select few and I am of the opninon that if Harry had told her Draco was dead, she'd of fed him to Voldemort.

Trixa

June 13th, 2009, 10:16 pm

I would have to agree with Meesha. The conclusion here is correct, but it is based on a non-canon premise, imo. Molly would never ally herself with a person like Voldemort - that was what Narcissa did and why she found herself having to betray Voldemort in the forest.
Well, like I said Molly is a good person and that's why she wouldn't ally herself with Voldemort. Narcissa is like a dark Molly Weasley.

However, I disagree that Molly was like Narcissa. Narcissa didn't take the mark, did not go out and do deeds for Voldy - but rather supported her family in that way. Molly actually worked for the Order - going out on assignments and such (see OOTP). She supported the Order at #12G also, and attended all meetings, not because they were held in her home (like Narcissa) but because she wished to participate, imo.

I agree to some extent but Molly was still less active than her fellow Order members and this is why I compared her to Narcissa. I do not see Molly as a person with a strong belief, like Bellatrix. And no, you don't have to be crazy to believe strongly in something so that's not what I meant.

can't answer for Meesha, but I do feel that Molly was shown to have the stronger character and a better mother as well. Draco wasn't only spoiled, but being taught poor values
Draco was under the impression that he was better than other people but then again so were many of Molly's children except maybe Ron and Bill.

Narcissa too was ready to give up the ghost - any ghost - in order to save her son. She'd be on Voldy's side, Dumbledore's side or Santa Claus' side if it meant Draco would be safe - and that to me shows a weakness in character.
How so? If she had sacrificed her son for Voldemort or for someone else, she would have been a Bellatrix.

Insomniatic

June 14th, 2009, 4:56 am

1. Favourite over-all character? Ginny, I see alot of myself in her, we grew up similary, kind of shy and akward when we were younger and then really came into our own when were like 16, I just see myself in her and she is one of the most realistic characters in the books.
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark? Rita Skeeter, but I can't really say, I haven't read the books in years!...or Bellatrix, their both sublimely evil.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
hmmm, Minerva maybe, or Bellatrix, both are curious creatures!

wickedwickedboy

June 14th, 2009, 5:13 am

Well, like I said Molly is a good person and that's why she wouldn't ally herself with Voldemort. Narcissa is like a dark Molly Weasley.

:lol:...kind of like Dark Link. I don't really see them like two sides of the same coin in that way though.

I agree to some extent but Molly was still less active than her fellow Order members and this is why I compared her to Narcissa. I do not see Molly as a person with a strong belief, like Bellatrix. And no, you don't have to be crazy to believe strongly in something so that's not what I meant.

Well Molly had 7 children and Narcissa had one. Proportionately speaking, Molly was tremendously more active than Narcissa, imo. That is, she had less spare time and still proportioned some out to working for the Order. When her kids left, she actually took on assignments (one of the twins mentions this in OOPT). So I would say she was far more active than Narcissa, taking everything into account.

Draco was under the impression that he was better than other people but then again so were many of Molly's children except maybe Ron and Bill.

Who for example? Charlie was stuck off with his dragons, I don't think he was too into people much and thinking about them being better. The twins perhaps felt they were better at creating and using pranks - they were - but apart from that, I don't recall them behaving like they were better than others. And Ginny didn't seem snobby or anything that would make me feel she thought herself better than others. In what ways did you feel these people thought they were better than others in canon?

How so? If she had sacrificed her son for Voldemort or for someone else, she would have been a Bellatrix.

No, that isn't what I meant. No one wants to sacrifice their children of course. However, Narcissa was willing to do murder in order to save her child (arranging for Dumbledore to be killed by another in order to keep him safe). It mattered not to her that Dumbledore would die; she had no desire to save him - only Draco. She was willing to fed the trio to Voldemort at Malfoy Manor in order to protect her child (and family). Do you not see the weakness in character in that? She obviously didn't give a hoot about Voldemort or his cause, her motivation was Draco's safety, but she took it beyond the limits of reason. That is not in anyway comparable to Molly, imo.

Narcissa also married and supported a Death Eater - off murdering muggles, muggleborns, Order members and carrying out other dastardly deeds. I do not feel one can try to make the straight way comparison with Molly in that they both supported their husbands in causes. We are talking the taking of lives, the destruction of families and human beings, the husband who is sobbing because he comes home to a death mark over his house and his wife and kids killed by Narcissa's husband and gang. This is what she would support. That has no comparison with a woman who supports a husband in a normal job or supporting a group that fights that sort of thing. So this type of comparison would not be valid to me. That would be like comparing Kingsley and Fudge, merely because they were both Ministers of Magic. Only the title is similar. Same for Narcissa and Molly in that they are both "wives" - but there the comparison ends.

meesha1971

June 14th, 2009, 8:53 am

Yes, and I said that a fanatical Bellatrix who didn't care about her sister would have employed violence to try to stop her from going to Snape which she didn't.
Also, a fanatical Bellatrix would have never believed that Voldemort could be wrong about Snape.

Fanaticism is manifested in many ways. Voldemort is also fanatical, but he is also capable of controlling himself - such as in the memory Harry sees of what happened at Godric's Hollow when he stopped himself from killing the little boy who talked to him because it was unnecessary - or his offer to allow Neville to live because he was a pure-blood. Bellatrix's fanaticism is towards Voldemort who has rallied the Death Eaters under the cause of purifying the wizarding world. The number of pure-blood witches and wizards had significantly decreased over the years due to witches and wizards marrying muggles. Narcissa was a pure-blood so it makes sense that Bellatrix would be reluctant to hurt or kill her unless it became absolutely necessary. But I have no doubt that Bellatrix would have resorted to any means necessary to stop Narcissa if it had turned out that Snape did not know of the plan.

The irony of that situation was that Bellatrix was right to doubt Snape's loyalty to Voldemort, but she is still embarrassed by that and hesitant to say that she thinks Voldemort is mistaken and she eventually concludes that Voldemort must be right to trust him. Snape's actions at Spinner's End were part of that, but overall, I would say that was due to her not being comfortable in questioning Voldemort in that manner.

It's a possible scenario just like mine was. We can only speculate about his reasons for doing so.

Considering that Voldemort had Pettigrew there to keep an eye on Snape - Bellatrix wasn't the only Death Eater who questioned his loyalty - it was unnecessary for him to have anyone else watching him. Pettigrew had proved himself to be good at spying with his betrayal of the Potters. So I would say that Snape looking out the window for Death Eaters would be a highly unlikely scenario because the spy was already in his house. In his role as a Death Eater, he would be expected to be concerned about Aurors or the Order, IMO.

The readers obviously expected that to happen and it would have made more sense than having Molly do it, IMO, not in terms of power but in terms of poetic justice. JKR set up an antagonism between Neville and Bella which she never completed.

That was the misdirection. I know that many readers thought it would be poetic justice, but I've come to realize that it wouldn't have been because Bellatrix did not act alone. Neville's parents were attacked by four people - Bellatrix, Rodolphus, Rastaban, and Crouch Jr. And those four people were sent after the Longbottoms by someone else - it was never revealed who sent them. So I would say having a showdown between Neville and Bellatrix would not have made any sense in the end because she was not the only Death Eater involved in the attack on his parents. Jo was never setting up a personal antagonism between Neville and Bellatrix - she was setting up a more general antagonism between Neville and the Death Eaters as a whole - what they stood for and the lengths they were willing to go to.

The personal antagonism with Bellatrix was actually between her and Harry - not Neville. Bellatrix alone murdered Sirius and Harry witnessed it. But Harry had to put that aside because it was more important for him to go after Voldemort.

Why not? Like I said before people were surprised that Neville didn't do it, not that Molly was capable enough to do it. It is also quite clear that what happened didn't have anything to do with Molly being more powerful or skilled but simply more motivated and angry.

I would say it was both. Harry was certainly more motivated and angry than Snape at the end of HBP, but he lacked the skill to effectively duel Snape and lost. The same can be said with Harry and Bellatrix in OOTP after she murdered Sirius. Molly being angry and motivated to go after Bellatrix did not give her a sudden, never before seen skill at dueling. She had to be powerful and have the skill to begin with or Bellatrix would have wiped the floor with her the same way Snape did with Harry at the end of HBP, IMO.

What missions were these? I don't remember but I don't even think Molly was in the Order during the first war.

Molly wasn't in the Order during the first war. I was referring to the second war. The missions that Harry learns about in OOTP were taking turns standing guard over him at Privet Dr. and taking turns standing guard over the prophecy at the DoM. All of the Order members - including Molly - were taking turns on those assignments. There was also the plan to remove Harry from Privet Dr. and take him to Grimmauld Place in OOTP - Molly was part of that as well. The Order was doing other things as well that Harry was never privy to and Molly would have been part of that as well. In DH, Molly was part of the plan to remove Harry from Privet Dr. and take him to the Burrow. And, again, the Order continued with missions that Harry was never told about and Molly would have been part of those as well.

She called Hermione a "scarlet woman" because of an article written by an infamous liar. Molly even lectures Mr Diggory on believing Rita's lies yet she believes them herself or at least did so that time.

No, she didn't. :lol: Ron said that Rita had painted Hermione to be a "scarlet woman" in that article - a term he'd learned from Molly in reference to women who behaved like Rita was describing. But Molly never said anything of the sort about Hermione. It did appear that she was upset with Hermione because of the article, but that had absolutely nothing to do with Hermione being muggleborn - she was upset over the insinuation that Hermione was dating both Krum and Harry. As for her believing the article - the basic facts given in the article were true - Hermione had gone to the Yule Ball with Krum and he had invited her to visit him in Bulgaria - and there were people who thought Hermione and Harry were dating because they were friends and spent a lot of time together. When she finds out that the insinuation in the story was completely false, she was fine. Molly never had any issue with Hermione being muggleborn.

Well, Molly is definitely a better person than Narcissa but I still think a paralell can be drawn between them. Their life styles certainly seem similar. Narcissa abandoned Voldemort because he was putting Draco in danger. Molly would have done the same thing to Dumbledore had he been a threat to one of her children. They both have a cause that they believe in though it seems to be that both Narcissa and Molly sort of went with the flow in this aspect. Narcissa was surrounded by people who served Voldemort and decided to do herself and the same thing probably applies to Molly. I do not believe that any of them was as passionate about her cause as Bellatrix was about hers. Narcissa did spoil her child and Molly does quite the opposite by making them wear second hand robes and all that. I wouldn't say that Narcissa is a horrible mother. I think they were both on the same level when it comes to motherhood though in different ways.
Why do you feel that Molly has a stronger character?

The text does not support that because Molly choosing to support Dumbledore and join the Order put her children in danger from the start - and Molly was aware of that. That was the whole point of the scene with the boggart in OOTP - Molly was terrified that one or more of her family would die in the war. But she sticks with it - she never betrays the Order or Dumbledore and she continues to fight even though she knows that puts her children in danger because it is the right thing to do. She fights for what she believes in throughout and never gives up on it in spite of the danger her family was in. Narcissa didn't have that kind of strength, IMO.

Narcissa is a horrible mother because she spoiled Draco rotten, taught him negative values from birth, supported criminal activities with his knowledge - teaching him that breaking the law was ok - and did not in any way prepare Draco to go out into the world and be able to function on his own because she stands between him and any hardship he might face to pave the way and make things easy for him. Draco never has to work for anything or earn anything because Narcissa and Lucius hand it all to him on a silver platter. He wants to play Quidditch - they buy his way onto the team rather than allowing him to try out and earn the position. He does something stupid at school and gets hurt - they blame Hagrid and set out to punish him for Draco's mistake. Draco never learns responsibility because his parents never make him do anything on his own - they do it for him or find some way to make it easy for him. I feel that the Malfoys and the Dursleys serve as an example of how love is not always a positive influence because they both inflict a great deal of damage on their sons in the name of love.

Molly is the complete opposite to Narcissa. She and Arthur teach their children positive values, how to work for their goals and earn them, they reward them for their accomplishments and punish them for their misdeeds - the Weasleys serve as an example of how love can be a positive influence. The Weasley kids were capable of going out on their own and functioning as adults because they were raised right by good parents.

Draco was under the impression that he was better than other people but then again so were many of Molly's children except maybe Ron and Bill.

I'm not sure where you would get that idea. :huh: The Weasley kids were never prejudiced and they never believed in pure-blood superiority. They all fought against Voldemort for the rights of muggles and muggleborns. Bill and Charlie were both shown to be very down to earth and neither was arrogant or held themselves above others in spite of their achievements. Percy appeared to be an exception until DH - but even Percy was shown to not truly be prejudiced - he let his ambition blind him and learned his lesson in the end. The twins didn't hold themselves superior to anyone - and they were the most angry at Percy during his lapse in that regard. Ron never displayed such an attitude - and we see him stand up for others quite a bit. And the same goes for Ginny - and we see her stand up for others as well - i.e. telling Neville not to call himself a nobody and defending Luna from people who picked on her. We also see the twins, Ron, and Ginny stand up for Hermione and tell others not to call her a "mudblood" - and that sort of thing made them all very angry. So I would have to say that none of the Weasley kids saw themselves as superior to others.

How so? If she had sacrificed her son for Voldemort or for someone else, she would have been a Bellatrix.

There's a difference between fighting for what you believe in and accepting that there will be danger involved for you and your family and handing your child over to be slaughtered or intentionally putting others in harms way to shield your child.

Molly fights for what she believes in and accepts the danger that presents - she knows that one or more of them could be killed before it's over, but she keeps fighting anyway.

We can't say the same for Narcissa. When Draco is put into danger, Narcissa doesn't hesitate to try and shield Draco by putting someone else in harms way instead. She and Lucius continually strive to find a way to regain Voldemort's favor so the three of them won't be in danger - and again, she is willing to put others in harms way to accomplish that. She abandons the fight in the end - not because she realized she was wrong, but because she simply didn't care anymore. She didn't care who lived or who died or even who won - all she cared about was finding Draco.

:lol:...kind of like Dark Link. I don't really see them like two sides of the same coin in that way though.

I agree. I see them as complete opposites.

Well Molly had 7 children and Narcissa had one. Proportionately speaking, Molly was tremendously more active than Narcissa, imo. That is, she had less spare time and still proportioned some out to working for the Order. When her kids left, she actually took on assignments (one of the twins mentions this in OOPT). So I would say she was far more active than Narcissa, taking everything into account.

Exactly. Sirius tells them of Molly doing something for the Order as well.

No, that isn't what I meant. No one wants to sacrifice their children of course. However, Narcissa was willing to do murder in order to save her child (arranging for Dumbledore to be killed by another in order to keep him safe). It mattered not to her that Dumbledore would die; she had no desire to save him - only Draco. She was willing to fed the trio to Voldemort at Malfoy Manor in order to protect her child (and family). Do you not see the weakness in character in that? She obviously didn't give a hoot about Voldemort or his cause, her motivation was Draco's safety, but she took it beyond the limits of reason. That is not in anyway comparable to Molly, imo.

Narcissa also married and supported a Death Eater - off murdering muggles, muggleborns, Order members and carrying out other dastardly deeds. I do not feel one can try to make the straight way comparison with Molly in that they both supported their husbands in causes. We are talking the taking of lives, the destruction of families and human beings, the husband who is sobbing because he comes home to a death mark over his house and his wife and kids killed by Narcissa's husband and gang. This is what she would support. That has no comparison with a woman who supports a husband in a normal job or supporting a group that fights that sort of thing. So this type of comparison would not be valid to me. That would be like comparing Kingsley and Fudge, merely because they were both Ministers of Magic. Only the title is similar. Same for Narcissa and Molly in that they are both "wives" - but there the comparison ends.

Completely agree. :agree:

Trixa

June 14th, 2009, 10:02 am

Who for example? Charlie was stuck off with his dragons, I don't think he was too into people much and thinking about them being better. The twins perhaps felt they were better at creating and using pranks - they were - but apart from that, I don't recall them behaving like they were better than others. And Ginny didn't seem snobby or anything that would make me feel she thought herself better than others. In what ways did you feel these people thought they were better than others in canon?

The twins aren't actually too different from Draco Malfoy when it comes to their behaviour. We saw them locking Montague into a closet so they obviously have no qualms about violence just like we saw them making fun of kids who got sorted into Slytherin. I don't know if they were taught these values at home but they certainly weren't good values. Ginny seems to think she can hex any person who doesn't like her or her friends. I do think however that Ginny is very insecure deep down judging by her strong jealous streak.

She was willing to fed the trio to Voldemort at Malfoy Manor in order to protect her child (and family). Do you not see the weakness in character in that?
To be honest, all I see is a woman who doesn't care about anything other than her son. I don't know if that's weakness of character though. And again, Molly would have done anything to protect her children as well.

Narcissa also married and supported a Death Eater - off murdering muggles, muggleborns, Order members and carrying out other dastardly deeds. I do not feel one can try to make the straight way comparison with Molly in that they both supported their husbands in causes. We are talking the taking of lives, the destruction of families and human beings, the husband who is sobbing because he comes home to a death mark over his house and his wife and kids killed by Narcissa's husband and gang. This is what she would support. That has no comparison with a woman who supports a husband in a normal job or supporting a group that fights that sort of thing. So this type of comparison would not be valid to me.
Again, I never said Molly was evil like Narcissa. I compared their loyalty to their family and their love for their children.

Narcissa was a pure-blood so it makes sense that Bellatrix would be reluctant to hurt or kill her unless it became absolutely necessary. But I have no doubt that Bellatrix would have resorted to any means necessary to stop Narcissa if it had turned out that Snape did not know of the plan.

Well, that's the thing. She didn't do that. As far as she was concerned Snape didn't know about the plan while Narcissa was on her way to visit him and she didn't do much to stop her then.

That was the misdirection. I know that many readers thought it would be poetic justice, but I've come to realize that it wouldn't have been because Bellatrix did not act alone. Neville's parents were attacked by four people - Bellatrix, Rodolphus, Rastaban, and Crouch Jr. And those four people were sent after the Longbottoms by someone else - it was never revealed who sent them. So I would say having a showdown between Neville and Bellatrix would not have made any sense in the end because she was not the only Death Eater involved in the attack on his parents.
Barty Crouch Jr is dead and the two Lestrange brothers are just names, not even characters. Bellatrix was the leader of that group and it was probably her idea to torture them in the first place.

Molly being angry and motivated to go after Bellatrix did not give her a sudden, never before seen skill at dueling.
It sort of did. I agree that she had to have been powerful even before that but given what we saw of her I find that very hard to believe.

The missions that Harry learns about in OOTP were taking turns standing guard over him at Privet Dr. and taking turns standing guard over the prophecy at the DoM.
I don't see what Molly would be doing at the Ministry since she didn't even work there. How would they explain her presence there?

In DH, Molly was part of the plan to remove Harry from Privet Dr. and take him to the Burrow.
Part of the plan in the sense that she knew about it, not in the sense of participation.

The text does not support that because Molly choosing to support Dumbledore and join the Order put her children in danger from the start - and Molly was aware of that. That was the whole point of the scene with the boggart in OOTP - Molly was terrified that one or more of her family would die in the war. But she sticks with it - she never betrays the Order or Dumbledore and she continues to fight even though she knows that puts her children in danger because it is the right thing to do. She fights for what she believes in throughout and never gives up on it in spite of the danger her family was in. Narcissa didn't have that kind of strength, IMO.
Since Molly wasn't in Order the first time, I find it hard to believe that she strongly cares about their cause. She probably became a member because of Harry and because she and her family had got quite attached to him. But as I said before, she went with the flow. Dumbledore asked her if she wanted to join and she said yes.

Molly is the complete opposite to Narcissa. She and Arthur teach their children positive values, how to work for their goals and earn them, they reward them for their accomplishments and punish them for their misdeeds - the Weasleys serve as an example of how love can be a positive influence. The Weasley kids were capable of going out on their own and functioning as adults because they were raised right by good parents.

The Weasleys never reward their children for anything. They got upset with Percy because he chose his own path and wanted to make something of himself. Molly didn't approve of the twin's shop until they started making enough money to shower her with expensive gifts. Draco was also able to function as an adult eventually and it seems as though he turned out to be a decent human being after all.

meesha1971

June 14th, 2009, 1:10 pm

The twins aren't actually too different from Draco Malfoy when it comes to their behaviour. We saw them locking Montague into a closet so they obviously have no qualms about violence just like we saw them making fun of kids who got sorted into Slytherin. I don't know if they were taught these values at home but they certainly weren't good values. Ginny seems to think she can hex any person who doesn't like her or her friends. I do think however that Ginny is very insecure deep down judging by her strong jealous streak.

The twins are very different from Draco Malfoy, IMO. Retaliation against someone is not the same thing as attacking. They put Montague in a cabinet because he - along with the rest of the Inquisitorial Squad - were abusing the authority Umbridge gave them to take points away from the other houses unfairly - Draco took points away from Hermione because she was a "mudblood". Ginny retaliated against Smith twice when he was being antagonistic - and he was shown to be an antagonistic jerk from the time he was introduced.

In contrast, Draco attacks people for fun, because he's bored, because he's jealous of them, to try and improve Slytherin's chances at winning in Quidditch, because of their blood status or being a "blood traitor", or just because he can.

That's a significant distinction in their behavior, IMO. What the twins and Ginny did was not good behavior - and Molly certainly would have punished them for it - but it's not evil either. I'd say that is normal because most teenagers are going to do things like that - particularly in a situation where they are being attacked or antagonized by someone else - and OOTP had the added circumstances with them rebelling against Umbridge and even the teachers were rebelling against her. That's part of growing up and such experiences are a learning process. But most teenagers are not going to just attack someone without provocation the way that Draco would. Jo set such situations up to show that distinction, IMO.

To be honest, all I see is a woman who doesn't care about anything other than her son. I don't know if that's weakness of character though. And again, Molly would have done anything to protect her children as well.

Molly wouldn't have gone along with a plan to murder an innocent man to protect one of her children. Nor would she have tortured a Death Eater's child or plotted to hand them over to someone who would kill them the way that Lucius and Narcissa did.

Again, I never said Molly was evil like Narcissa. I compared their loyalty to their family and their love for their children.

The distinction is in how that is expressed. Narcissa would literally do anything - lie, cheat, steal, torture and/or kill innocent people - you name it. She had no limits and there were no lines that she would not cross for her son and her husband. Her love is shown to be very dysfunctional and damaging. And - along with Lucius - she sets a horrible example for Draco to emulate.

Molly had limits. She wouldn't lie, cheat, steal, torture and/or kill innocent people even for her family. She believed in setting a good example for her children. She's not perfect by any means - she has a temper and her children inherited that - but she's not evil and there are lines that she would not cross no matter what.

Well, that's the thing. She didn't do that. As far as she was concerned Snape didn't know about the plan while Narcissa was on her way to visit him and she didn't do much to stop her then.

She tried to stop her - Narcissa had to hex her to get her to back off - and even then, Bellatrix is still trying to stop her. I think Bellatrix did know - on some level - that Snape would be in on the plan. Narcissa believed that because Voldemort trusted Snape - that was mentioned on page - and, given the presentation that this was a continuation of the argument between the sisters, they had probably already discussed that. Bellatrix didn't want Snape to be in on it because she questioned his loyalty, but he was. It's not until Snape confirms that he is in on the plan that Bellatrix stops intervening and allows Narcissa to talk to Snape freely.

So I have no doubt that, if it had come down to it and it had turned out that Snape was not in on the plan, Bellatrix would have done whatever she felt necessary to stop Narcissa from talking to Snape.

Barty Crouch Jr is dead and the two Lestrange brothers are just names, not even characters. Bellatrix was the leader of that group and it was probably her idea to torture them in the first place.

Barty Crouch Jr. is not dead - his soul was removed. The two Lestrange brothers are characters - minor characters, but still characters and they were still around in DH. It wasn't Bellatrix's idea - the four of them were sent after the Longbottoms by someone else - per Jo, but it was never revealed who sent them.

So the antagonism was never between Bellatrix and Neville - if there were going to be any poetic justice in that regard, it would have to be between Neville and whoever sent those four Death Eaters after his parents, IMO.

It sort of did. I agree that she had to have been powerful even before that but given what we saw of her I find that very hard to believe.

It was shown on page that she was so why would that be hard to believe? As I said before, that type of thing only needs to be demonstrated once. We didn't need to see Molly in action prior to that - we only needed to see her in action for that one duel.

I don't see what Molly would be doing at the Ministry since she didn't even work there. How would they explain her presence there?

Not everyone who was in the Order worked at the Ministry - and even those who did would have gotten in trouble if they were caught standing guard down at the DoM late at night. That's why they were using Moody's Invisibility Cloak - so none of them would get caught. That's also why Harry having the dream about Arthur being attacked was beneficial - it gave Dumbledore time to come up with a good cover story for Arthur to explain why he was down there in the middle of the night.

The ones who did work at the Ministry - i.e. Arthur, Tonks, and Kingsley - couldn't stand guard duty during the day while they were supposed to be working. During the day, it had to be someone in the Order who did not work at the Ministry - like Sturgis Podmore. He was taking his turn to stand guard at the DoM the day that Harry had his hearing - and Harry saw Lucius down there talking to Fudge after his hearing was over. Later, they discovered that Lucius had put Broderick Bode - the Unspeakable who rode the lift down to the DoM with Harry and Arthur - under the Imperius Curse to try and steal the prophecy for Voldemort. Sturgis Podmore was standing guard using Moody's Invisibility Cloak at the time and he got hit with the curse too - and was caught trying to break into the Hall of Prophecies and sentenced to six months in Azkaban.

Part of the plan in the sense that she knew about it, not in the sense of participation.

Not everyone who participated in that plan was part of the escort party - that was only one part of the plan after all. Other members had to be stationed at the safe houses - i.e. Tonks' parents waiting for Harry and Hagrid at their house. There were at least 8 other people participating in that plan - there were seven safe houses and Tonks' parents were at one and there would be at least one person at each of the others. Just because they weren't part of the escort, doesn't minimize their significance to the plan because someone had to be there when they arrived in case anyone was hurt - which was the case when Harry and Hagrid arrived at the Tonks home - as well as when Lupin and George arrived at the Burrow.

Since Molly wasn't in Order the first time, I find it hard to believe that she strongly cares about their cause. She probably became a member because of Harry and because she and her family had got quite attached to him. But as I said before, she went with the flow. Dumbledore asked her if she wanted to join and she said yes.

That's a very big assumption to make without knowing why Molly was not part of the Order during the first war. When Lupin discussed that with Molly after her horrifying experience with the boggart, he shows understanding for Molly not being part of the Order the first time around. So I would say that Molly and Arthur had valid reasons for not being part of the Order that time. Molly did not join the Order because of Harry - she joined the Order because Voldemort had returned she believed in what they were fighting for. When Dumbledore askd Molly if he could count on her and Arthur after the confrontation with Fudge in GOF, she did not say "Of course you can, I'll do anything for Harry". She said "Of course you can. We know what Fudge is." She joined because she believed Harry when he reported that Voldemort had returned and thought Fudge was a fool not to.

The Weasleys never reward their children for anything. They got upset with Percy because he chose his own path and wanted to make something of himself. Molly didn't approve of the twin's shop until they started making enough money to shower her with expensive gifts. Draco was also able to function as an adult eventually and it seems as though he turned out to be a decent human being after all.

The text tells us otherwise. Percy was rewarded when he earned his prefect badge with a new owl - Hermes. Ron was rewarded when he earned his prefect badge with a new broomstick. It stands to reason that the other Weasley children were rewarded for their accomplishments too.

Arthur and Molly were never upset with Percy for trying to make something of himself. They were very proud of Percy for the accomplishments that he earned. Percy got angry with them when Arthur pointed out that Fudge was trying to use him to spy on his family and Dumbledore - which was true because Percy had just come out of an Inquiry over the situation with Mr. Crouch and certainly hadn't earned a promotion - particularly to Junior Minister. He said horrible things to them and moved out - he slammed the door in Molly's face when she tried to talk to him and returned his Christmas present unopened. Percy took responsibility for his mistakes and apologized for his horrible behavior when he showed up at Hogwarts in DH and was forgiven.

Molly was worried about the twins wanting to open a joke shop - particularly when they quit school to do so. Molly often lost her temper when she was worried - like when she snapped at Ron for making a joke about Voldemort because she was worried something might happen while they were at Diagon Alley in HBP. But that was an understandable concern, IMO. Opening a new business is a risky venture - particularly when there is already a similar business already established to compete with. The twins proved themselves there - they did not just jump into it unprepared and they had a good head for business. Once they had shown that, Molly had no reason to be worried and she calmed down.

As for Draco - we can't really say how he turned out because no details are given apart from him being married and having a son. Seeing him putting his son on the Hogwarts Express and giving a curt nod to Harry doesn't tell us anything about what kind of person Draco is as an adult. Is he a decent human being? I very seriously doubt it given the way he acted in the Room of Requirement during the final battle. Can he function as an adult without his parents giving him everything he wants? I very seriously doubt that too. Narcissa kept him and Lucius out of Azkaban and it's very likely that he has an inheritance to support himself. His parents never set a good example for him and never taught him how to be responsible - they taught him how to look for the easy way out. So the adult Draco is probably not all that different from the child, IMO.

Trixa

June 14th, 2009, 2:07 pm

The twins are very different from Draco Malfoy, IMO. Retaliation against someone is not the same thing as attacking.
I doubt the eleven year old Slytherins attacked Fred and George.

Ginny retaliated against Smith twice when he was being antagonistic - and he was shown to be an antagonistic jerk from the time he was introduced.
So someone being a jerk to you gives you the right to be aggressive? I can't excuse Ginny or the twins' behavior because you always have another option than just attacking someone. Montague could have died in that closet.

That's a significant distinction in their behavior, IMO. What the twins and Ginny did was not good behavior - and Molly certainly would have punished them for it - but it's not evil either.
But they had to have learned that behaviour from someone. Besides, Molly has her share of less than pleasant behaviour. Hermione's Easter egg and her treatment of Fleur are just a few examples.

Molly wouldn't have gone along with a plan to murder an innocent man to protect one of her children. Nor would she have tortured a Death Eater's child or plotted to hand them over to someone who would kill them the way that Lucius and Narcissa did.
Yes, because Molly isn't evil.

Molly had limits. She wouldn't lie, cheat, steal, torture and/or kill innocent people even for her family. She believed in setting a good example for her children. She's not perfect by any means - she has a temper and her children inherited that - but she's not evil and there are lines that she would not cross no matter what.

Molly killed a person and would definitely do so again. My point was that if DD had intended to sacrifice one of her sons Molly wouldn't not have continued to be loyal to him just like Narcissa stopped being loyal to Voldemort. Of course Molly would never torture someone but that's because, unlike Narcissa, she is good.

She tried to stop her - Narcissa had to hex her to get her to back off - and even then, Bellatrix is still trying to stop her.

Grabbing her hand is hardly a serious way of trying to stop her. You also used the Spinner's End chapter as an example of Bella not caring about her sister which sort of baffles me, to be honest, since it shows the exact opposite.

So the antagonism was never between Bellatrix and Neville - if there were going to be any poetic justice in that regard, it would have to be between Neville and whoever sent those four Death Eaters after his parents, IMO.
It was obvious from the end of OotP that Bellatrix and Neville had something going on. It was her he targeted, not Rodolphus or his brother. She was the one who tortured him, not one of the two brothers. That's why the majority of fans thought that he would be the one to kill her.

It was shown on page that she was so why would that be hard to believe? As I said before, that type of thing only needs to be demonstrated once. We didn't need to see Molly in action prior to that - we only needed to see her in action for that one duel.
What happens in a story has to be believable and in character. Not only do we not see Molly's skill we don't see any history between her and Bellatrix whatsoever. What happened was never foreshadowed. It came as a surprise but not a nice one.

That's a very big assumption to make without knowing why Molly was not part of the Order during the first war. When Lupin discussed that with Molly after her horrifying experience with the boggart, he shows understanding for Molly not being part of the Order the first time around. So I would say that Molly and Arthur had valid reasons for not being part of the Order that time.
We will never know. But since she wasn't a member then it's hard to believe that she is passionate about their cause.

As for Draco - we can't really say how he turned out because no details are given apart from him being married and having a son. Seeing him putting his son on the Hogwarts Express and giving a curt nod to Harry doesn't tell us anything about what kind of person Draco is as an adult. Is he a decent human being?
I think so. The fact that he was able to get over what happened and nod at Harry does tell us something about his character. Draco was never a bad person, he had simply bitten off more than he could chew. Narcissa wasn't a horrible mother either. She raised her child and taught him the values that she considered right, just like Molly did with her children. Narcissa didn't know anything else because she herself had been raised to believe in pureblood supremacy. And Draco did do things by himself in HBP. He refused to confide in Snape so he obviously didn't get much help from him. Narcissa may have been a horrible person but not a horrible mother.

Kella

June 14th, 2009, 5:28 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
Luna. She's unique. AND a Ravenclaw. ;) I like the way she's described, too.
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
Luna for the light side... for the dark side... Are there only 3 to go with? Well, I will have to go with Merope myself. As some people pointed out above, she's guilty of some things as well... still, like her much more than the Black sisters.
3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Hmm... Minerva McGonagall sounds like a good choice, yes. I think I'd like to learn a bit about Snape's mother, though. And Lily and Petunia's. And Andromeda as well... well, why choose? I want to learn about them ALL ;) Then I will be able to answer the questions above with more accuracy.

wickedwickedboy

June 15th, 2009, 12:27 am

So someone being a jerk to you gives you the right to be aggressive? I can't excuse Ginny or the twins' behavior because you always have another option than just attacking someone. Montague could have died in that closet.

Is standing up for a person behaving like a jerk the way to argue this? I think JKR wrote this with the intent of showing it to be a situation in which neither youngster could fairly be judged. Both sides are doing something wrong and that neither damns nor exonerates Ginny (or Zach), imo. Same in the situation with the twins and Montague. I do think the twins went overboard and too far - but I don't feel that is the focal point - or there would be no reason to speak about Montague and his going overboard with his appointment.

The school yard brawls - all the attacking and retaliating - doesn't make Molly's kids appear superior like Draco did, imo, that makes them like 1000's of other children to me. What distinguishes them is is viewpoint, imo. Draco really did feel he was better than others - muggles, muggleborns and pureblood blood traitors and soiled half bloods that weren't against those he disliked. That was the frequent basis of operations for Draco - followed by his repeated statements "wait till my father hears about this" - like the little prince will tell his father the king about how poorly the subjects are treating him and have them beheaded - superiority reeks from that type of statement, imo. Ginny and the twins didn't behave that way or feel they were better than others, that had no bearing on their behavior, imo. That was your original contention, btw.

meesha1971

June 15th, 2009, 4:32 am

I doubt the eleven year old Slytherins attacked Fred and George.

I'm not sure what you're referring to there so I cannot respond. Montague was not 11 years old and they were retaliating against him. :hmm:

So someone being a jerk to you gives you the right to be aggressive? I can't excuse Ginny or the twins' behavior because you always have another option than just attacking someone. Montague could have died in that closet.

How could he have died? It was a vanishing cabinet connected to another vanishing cabinet. One end of the portal was broken and that resulted in Montague being trapped between the two locations of the cabinets and he injured himself by apparating into Hogwarts because of the anti-apparition jinx in place there. However, the twins were not aware of that - not even Dumbledore knew about the second vanishing cabinet - as far as they knew, they had simply sent Montague to another location.

The issue is not about being aggressive - we're talking about teenagers and I think that type of thing is normal. School rivalries most often fall along those lines with aggression demonstrated on both sides. What is more significant to me is the underlying reason for the aggression. Montague goes after the twins simply because they're in Gryffindor and he's attempting to ensure Slytherin wins the house cup by abusing the authority Umbridge gave him to remove house points from the other houses without just cause - and Umbridge allows them to get away with that.

Zacharias Smith was characterized as an antagonistic person who, for an unknown reason, had a personal grudge against Harry and would not respond to civilized attempts to get him to back off. He only responded to aggression. He disrupted the initial meeting for the DA in the Hogs Head and wouldn't shut up until he was threatened. He disrupted other DA meetings and only stopped when Harry made him look like an idiot. Given what we know about Smith, it is most likely that he badgered Ginny and would not stop until she forced him to by hexing him. And we see in the Quidditch Match that he was still being antagonistic and very insulting towards Harry and the rest of the Gryffindor Quidditch team because of Harry.

I'm not saying that entirely excuses the twins or Ginny's behavior because they did something wrong and Molly certainly would have punished them if she'd caught them doing those things. But it stands out to me that these were presented as exceptions for them - not how they behaved all the time. Ginny didn't go around randomly hexing people just because she could - she only did something like that when she was provoked and lost her temper. The twins played practical jokes - and everyone was fair game in that regard - but they didn't go around attacking people for no reason. They only did something like that if they were provoked and lost their tempers.

That's the distinction that Jo makes throughout. Malfoy and the rest of Slytherin house were shown to attack without provocation - just for fun, trying to improve their odds in Quidditch or the house cup, because they felt the other person was inferior due to blood status or being a "blood traitor". They were antagonistic and set out to provoke students in the other houses to try and get them in trouble. Retaliation against that kind of negative behavior is more understandable and more forgivable, IMO.

But they had to have learned that behaviour from someone. Besides, Molly has her share of less than pleasant behaviour. Hermione's Easter egg and her treatment of Fleur are just a few examples.

Molly had a temper as well and that flaw makes her a more realistic character, IMO. She was upset with Hermione and reacted. It had nothing to do with Hermione being a muggleborn - as you initially implied - it was the insinuation that Hermione had done something to hurt Harry that upset Molly. And I would say that Molly was most likely aware of Ron's feelings for Hermione as well and was probably upset over how he might have been affected by all that. When she found out it wasn't true, she was fine and everything went back to normal. But sending Hermione a smaller Easter egg than the others is hardly comparable to the Slytherins attacking other students without provocation, IMO. Molly could have done a lot worse - she could have not sent her anything at all or sent her a howler instead - which would have been further humiliation for Hermione. But she doesn't. She was upset over the insinuation, but the fact that she didn't entirely exclude Hermione or send a howler - or anything else along those lines - shows that she wasn't being entirely unreasonable about the situation, IMO.

Fleur was also shown to be antagonistic towards them as well - the difference with Fleur is that it was unintentional on her part. It didn't occur to her that her comments about Molly's home and lifestyle were offensive and hurtful. It didn't occur to her that her comments about Hogwarts and the traditions there would be offensive to Hermione. It didn't occur to her that treating Ginny like she was three years old would be offensive and hurtful. Molly, Hermione, and Ginny were shown to react to Fleur's rude behavior - and still none of them ever did anything to Fleur directly. They were upset and vented their frustrations to others, but they never went after Fleur. And when Fleur finally demonstrated that there was more to her than the shallow, rude person she'd presented herself as to that point, they accepted her as part of the family.

Molly killed a person and would definitely do so again. My point was that if DD had intended to sacrifice one of her sons Molly wouldn't not have continued to be loyal to him just like Narcissa stopped being loyal to Voldemort. Of course Molly would never torture someone but that's because, unlike Narcissa, she is good.

Molly killed a criminally insane Death Eater who had just tried to kill her daughter and implied that she was responsible for her son's death. She did not kill an innocent person. Self defense and defending others are entirely different things, IMO.

I agree that Molly would not have supported Dumbledore if he planned to sacrfice one of her children - and I'd say she probably would have been appalled if she'd known Dumbledore's plans regarding Harry as well.

However, that simply is not the case with Narcissa. Narcissa never stopped being loyal to Voldemort. When she realized that Voldemort chose Draco for that assignment because he expected him to die - or end up in Azkaban - due to his anger at Lucius, she was upset and worried about Draco, but her loyalty to Voldemort never waivered. She did not try to stop the plan from being carried out. She did not take Draco and run for the hills. She did not go to Dumbledore - or anyone else in the Order - and ask for help because Voldemort had turned on them. She remained completely loyal to Voldemort and merely tried to get Snape to do it for Draco instead. It never bothered her that an innocent man had been targeted for murder or even that her son was being asked to commit that murder - her only concern was that she didn't believe Draco could pull it off and might die.

And not only does Narcissa remain completely loyal to Voldemort after he targets her family and intentionally puts her son in harms way - she and Lucius continued to seek ways of regaining Voldemort's favor so they would be respected and admired among the Death Eaters again. She was willing to hand over the trio to Voldemort - and she and Lucius were both quite happy about the prospect because they were sure it would mean that Voldemort would forgive them completely. She didn't blink an eye when Bellatrix took Hermione to torture or when she gave Greyback permission to kill her.

Narcissa's only act of disloyalty came when she realized Voldemort was going to lose. Harry was still alive - Voldemort had failed to kill him yet again. And she had personally seen Harry get hit directly with the killing curse. So she believed it was over - that Voldemort could not kill Harry. Harry's life meant nothing to her - she wasn't after helping him or helping anyone fighting against Voldemort. She did not switch sides. She was simply done - it was over as far as she was concerned. They had lost and her only interest was finding Draco.

Grabbing her hand is hardly a serious way of trying to stop her. You also used the Spinner's End chapter as an example of Bella not caring about her sister which sort of baffles me, to be honest, since it shows the exact opposite.

I would have to disagree because Bellatrix shows no regard for Narcissa at all. She didn't care that Narcissa was upset. She didn't care that Narcissa was worried for her son. She mocked Narcissa's pain and belittled her for not being proud that her son was being offered up as a sacrifice. So I would have to say that scene is a perfect example that Bellatrix did not care about her sister at all. The fact that she shows some measure of control and waits until she has confirmation about whether Snape was in on the plan or not before acting doesn't change that, IMO.

If Bellatrix had cared anything about Narcissa, she would have been trying to comfort her instead of mocking her and belittling her for being upset, IMO. She would have been offering suggestions on how they could prepare Draco and improve the odds for him to succeed. We are shown the exact opposite - Bellatrix had no regard for Narcissa's feelings and was ashamed of her for not being willing to sacrifice her son to Voldemort.

It was obvious from the end of OotP that Bellatrix and Neville had something going on. It was her he targeted, not Rodolphus or his brother. She was the one who tortured him, not one of the two brothers. That's why the majority of fans thought that he would be the one to kill her.

You are confusing the movie with the book. The movie made it appear that it was personal for Neville because of Bellatrix. The book did not. Neville went with Harry to help rescue Sirius - not to go after Bellatrix. When the Death Eaters corner them, he says nothing - does not acknowledge Bellatrix. When they make their stand - he does not make a move against Bellatrix at all. He and Harry were the last of the six standing and, still, Neville doesn't do or say anything to or about Bellatrix - he's focused on the Death Eaters as a group. Bellatrix didn't even know who Neville was until Lucius pointed out that his name was Longbottom - and she brags about meeting his parents. Neville responds that he knows, but still he doesn't do or say anything more than that. And when it comes down to it and Bellatrix is threatening him to try and get Harry to hand over the prophecy, Neville is still focused on the Death Eaters as a group. He doesn't say "Don't give it to her". He says "Don't give it to them". If anything, I would say the events in the DoM show that Neville was never holding a personal grudge against Bellatrix - he hated the Death Eaters as a group because of what they stood for and what happened to his parents - not just one of them.

That was the misdirection. People assumed Neville would go after Bellatrix just because she was one of the four who was sent after his parents - and I'm including myself in that because I never stopped to give it much thought either. But after DH - and rereading the entire series again - I realized that I had overlooked quite a few details because I wasn't thinking it through all the way.

What happens in a story has to be believable and in character. Not only do we not see Molly's skill we don't see any history between her and Bellatrix whatsoever. What happened was never foreshadowed. It came as a surprise but not a nice one.

I would say that was believable and in character for Molly. It wasn't necessary to show her dueling prior to that to establish that she was capable of it or to foreshadow her reaction in that situation. It did come as a bit of a surprise because of the misdirection with Neville, but I would say that it was a good one. One of my favorite moments in DH actually. For me, it was a moment of realizing that I should have seen it before because it was the perfect way to bring that full circle.

I would say Molly was presented as a formidable witch from the first time Harry went to stay at the Burrow in COS and he compared her to a "saber-toothed tiger". And we see that with Lupin in OOTP as well when he intervenes between Molly and Sirius before they come to blows in their argument. Her fears in regards to her family were emphasized and it was made known that her brothers were killed in the first war. Molly was presented as someone not to be crossed, IMO. So when Bellatrix almost hit Ginny with a killing curse, I wasn't completely surprised by Molly's reaction - it was a natural response given her characterization and, in hindsight, I realized I should have expected something like that.

We will never know. But since she wasn't a member then it's hard to believe that she is passionate about their cause.

I don't see where that would be difficult at all. Molly was not the only person who was not a member of the Order during the first war. And they were continually trying to recruit new members to the Order as well. Just because someone didn't fight the first time around doesn't mean they don't care about the cause.

Given the fact that joining the Order put her entire family in a lot of danger, I would say that the only reason Molly would have for doing so was because she cared about the cause. She could have taken her children and run - she could have insisted to Arthur that they leave the country as many others were doing. She didn't have to put her family at risk by choosing to fight. It wasn't an easy choice for her - as we see with the boggart - but she does so anyway.

I think so. The fact that he was able to get over what happened and nod at Harry does tell us something about his character. Draco was never a bad person, he had simply bitten off more than he could chew. Narcissa wasn't a horrible mother either. She raised her child and taught him the values that she considered right, just like Molly did with her children. Narcissa didn't know anything else because she herself had been raised to believe in pureblood supremacy. And Draco did do things by himself in HBP. He refused to confide in Snape so he obviously didn't get much help from him. Narcissa may have been a horrible person but not a horrible mother.

What evidence do we have that he was able to get over what happened? A curt nod in a public place does not demonstrate that, IMO. All that shows is that Malfoy is not going to cause a public scene - and he was never one to act against Harry - or Ron and Hermione - when there were witnesses and/or he didn't have a couple of muscle bound bullies to back him up. I would say that Draco was always a bad person - he was taught to be a bad person from birth and there is nothing in the text to suggest that ever changed, IMO. Being a Death Eater wasn't what he expected it to be because his father had lost favor with Voldemort and they were a laughing stock. So instead of being respected and feared as he imagined, he was mocked and ridiculed. His response to that was to seek ways to regain favor with Voldemort so he could be respected and feared as he'd envisioned.

Draco did not confide in Snape because he felt Snape had usurped Lucius' position and was angry about that. However, he did not act on his own. He had outside help from the Death Eaters and would not have been able to pull any of it off without that, IMO. Nor was he even willing to attempt it until he had the Death Eaters there to back him up - Draco always had to have some muscle behind him before he acted. For his attempts at bullying Harry and his friends, that was Crabbe and Goyle - for killing Dumbledore, it was the Death Eaters. He couldn't do it on his own. We see that with his attempts to kill Dumbledore with the necklace and the poisoned meade - both attempts were remarkably bad plans that had no chance of success. Even if Katie hadn't accidentally touched the necklace herself, she would never have gotten it past Filch at the gate - the probe would have detected it. And Hermione pointed out the logical fallacy in trying to pass the meade on through Slughorn - he'd keep something like that for himself. But - for me - that only demonstrates that Draco was even more dangerous as an enemy - as Hermione pointed out as well. He had no regard for anyone else that might have been hurt due to his poorly executed plans - on the contrary, he was quite proud of himself for nearly killing Ron and Katie - but lacked the tools and skills required to come up with anything better on his own.

Narcissa's negative values and beliefs are only part of the reason she was a horrible mother. Spoiling her son and not teaching him any responsibility - or even letting him try and fail on his own so he could learn from his mistakes - make her a horrible mother as well. She did not equip her son to function as an adult in the world - not even in their warped world where it was acceptable to torture and kill people on the basis of their blood status. Draco's failure does not demonstrate him to be a good person, IMO. He was shown throughout to be a bad person who did not care about others, tried to use his family name and/or fortune to get what he felt he deserved rather than working for it or earning it, reveled in violence towards muggles and muggleborns, gleefully wished people had been killed, and even in the end, he was still trying to capture Harry and hand him over to Voldemort to try and regain favor. So I would say that Draco failed because his parents failed to give him the tools and skills he would need to function on his own - good or bad. His actions against Harry in the Room of Requirement show that he hadn't really changed and never would, IMO.

And it really makes very little difference to me that Narcissa was raised to believe that and chose to raise her son that way - that would be an excuse to perpetuate their crimes rather than a valid reason, IMO. The claim that "they didn't know any better" just doesn't cut it for me because I would say they all knew full well that what they were doing was wrong - there is no justification for being supportive of genocide just because you see those people as inferior to yourself, IMO.

Is standing up for a person behaving like a jerk the way to argue this? I think JKR wrote this with the intent of showing it to be a situation in which neither youngster could fairly be judged. Both sides are doing something wrong and that neither damns nor exonerates Ginny (or Zach), imo. Same in the situation with the twins and Montague. I do think the twins went overboard and too far - but I don't feel that is the focal point - or there would be no reason to speak about Montague and his going overboard with his appointment.

The school yard brawls - all the attacking and retaliating - doesn't make Molly's kids appear superior like Draco did, imo, that makes them like 1000's of other children to me. What distinguishes them is is viewpoint, imo. Draco really did feel he was better than others - muggles, muggleborns and pureblood blood traitors and soiled half bloods that weren't against those he disliked. That was the frequent basis of operations for Draco. Ginny and the twins didn't feel they were better than others, that had no bearing on their behavior, imo. That was your original contention, btw.

Exactly. :agree:

Trixa

June 15th, 2009, 10:26 am

Is standing up for a person behaving like a jerk the way to argue this? I think JKR wrote this with the intent of showing it to be a situation in which neither youngster could fairly be judged. Both sides are doing something wrong and that neither damns nor exonerates Ginny (or Zach), imo. Same in the situation with the twins and Montague. I do think the twins went overboard and too far - but I don't feel that is the focal point - or there would be no reason to speak about Montague and his going overboard with his appointment.
I would say that it was bad behaviour no matter what Montague or Zack had done to them. The Weasley children may not think they are better than Muggles (though I'm not entirely sure about that either) but they certainly think they are better than Slytherins.

I'm not sure what you're referring to there so I cannot respond. Montague was not 11 years old and they were retaliating against him.
There was a scene in one of the books where Fred and George were hissing at newly sorted Slytherins.

Zacharias Smith was characterized as an antagonistic person who, for an unknown reason, had a personal grudge against Harry and would not respond to civilized attempts to get him to back off. He only responded to aggression. He disrupted the initial meeting for the DA in the Hogs Head and wouldn't shut up until he was threatened. He disrupted other DA meetings and only stopped when Harry made him look like an idiot. Given what we know about Smith, it is most likely that he badgered Ginny and would not stop until she forced him to by hexing him. And we see in the Quidditch Match that he was still being antagonistic and very insulting towards Harry and the rest of the Gryffindor Quidditch team because of Harry.

I never got that feeling that Zack was a jerk. I think he was entitled to ask Harry some questions since he was basically asking them to risk detention by joining his group. Also, the fact that he was curious about what happened at the Ministry was quite understandable. All students wanted to know. As for him making biased comments about Gryffindor, well so did Lee Jordan about Slytherins.

Molly had a temper as well and that flaw makes her a more realistic character, IMO.
How much can having a temper excuse though? It seems as though whenever Ginny or Molly behave inappropiately the fans always shrug it off and say that they had a temper.

Fleur was also shown to be antagonistic towards them as well - the difference with Fleur is that it was unintentional on her part. It didn't occur to her that her comments about Molly's home and lifestyle were offensive and hurtful. It didn't occur to her that her comments about Hogwarts and the traditions there would be offensive to Hermione. It didn't occur to her that treating Ginny like she was three years old would be offensive and hurtful. Molly, Hermione, and Ginny were shown to react to Fleur's rude behavior - and still none of them ever did anything to Fleur directly. They were upset and vented their frustrations to others, but they never went after Fleur. And when Fleur finally demonstrated that there was more to her than the shallow, rude person she'd presented herself as to that point, they accepted her as part of the family.

I agree that Fleur was being rude and rather tactless herself. However one has to wonder which side started it all. I doubt Molly and Ginny immediately embraced Fleur as soon as they met her. I'm more inclined to think that they were hostile towards her from the beginning. With Molly, it was probably because she was being protective of her son. Ginny was probably just jealous of Fleur because she knew how Harry felt about her. Also, the scene at Christmas where they are all opening their presents and find a sweater from Molly there and Fleur hasn't received anything because Molly doesn't like her, that was just so rude IMO. How awful to be having lunch with your new family and everyone gets presents except you!

Molly killed a criminally insane Death Eater who had just tried to kill her daughter and implied that she was responsible for her son's death.
Bellatrix wasn't responsible for Fred's death, Fred was killed by an explosion which was probably caused by accident anyway. Also, Molly didn't only killed her, she enjoyed doing it.

However, that simply is not the case with Narcissa. Narcissa never stopped being loyal to Voldemort. When she realized that Voldemort chose Draco for that assignment because he expected him to die - or end up in Azkaban - due to his anger at Lucius, she was upset and worried about Draco, but her loyalty to Voldemort never waivered. She did not try to stop the plan from being carried out. She did not take Draco and run for the hills. She did not go to Dumbledore - or anyone else in the Order - and ask for help because Voldemort had turned on them. She remained completely loyal to Voldemort and merely tried to get Snape to do it for Draco instead. It never bothered her that an innocent man had been targeted for murder or even that her son was being asked to commit that murder - her only concern was that she didn't believe Draco could pull it off and might die.

HAve you changed your positions now? You've said that Narcissa would have sided with anyone who had Draco's best interests in mind and thus she was weak. You've also said that the difference between Narcissa and Molly was that Molly remained loyal to her side even though it meant danger to her children. Now you're saying that Narcissa did the same thing until she realized Voldemort would hurt Draco. But you agree that Molly would have also betrayed DD if he had intended to hurt one of her kids.

I would have to disagree because Bellatrix shows no regard for Narcissa at all. She didn't care that Narcissa was upset. She didn't care that Narcissa was worried for her son.
She was probably trying to comfort Narcissa by saying that she should consider it an honour. I agree that it isn't much comfort but Bellatrix is definitely not going to show affection in the way normal people do it. Besides, she did help them with the Vow and teach Draco Occlumency.

One of my favorite moments in DH actually. For me, it was a moment of realizing that I should have seen it before because it was the perfect way to bring that full circle.

How so?

So when Bellatrix almost hit Ginny with a killing curse, I wasn't completely surprised by Molly's reaction - it was a natural response given her characterization and, in hindsight, I realized I should have expected something like that.

It was a normal reaction for any mother, not just Molly. But prior to that moment we didn't know that Molly had such skills or that there was any reason for Molly to confront Bellatrix, a woman she had never met before and against whom she held no particular grudge. It would have made more sense for Molly to kill Dolohov, the man who killed her brothers.

What evidence do we have that he was able to get over what happened? A curt nod in a public place does not demonstrate that, IMO.
Would the old Draco Malfoy have nodded to his arch enemy, Harry Potter?

He had no regard for anyone else that might have been hurt due to his poorly executed plans - on the contrary, he was quite proud of himself for nearly killing Ron and Katie - but lacked the tools and skills required to come up with anything better on his own.

That reminds me of another character who also couldn't do much on his own and who also relied on his friends and a number of other characters. :lol:

And it really makes very little difference to me that Narcissa was raised to believe that and chose to raise her son that way - that would be an excuse to perpetuate their crimes rather than a valid reason, IMO.
But it is a valid reason. If you're never taught proper values then you won't have proper values.

The claim that "they didn't know any better" just doesn't cut it for me because I would say they all knew full well that what they were doing was wrong - there is no justification for being supportive of genocide just because you see those people as inferior to yourself, IMO.

Of course not but what has that got to do with anything? I have already admitted that Narcissa was evil. I think she is like a dark Molly Weasley. It's just like when people compare Bellatrix to Ginny. They don't mean that Ginny could possibly kill or torture someone, it smply means that they have about the same type of personalities though on differents sides of the coin. That's the deal with Narcissa and Molly too. They are both loyal to a cause but more loyal to their families and they both have similar lifestyles.

meesha1971

June 15th, 2009, 12:25 pm

I would say that it was bad behaviour no matter what Montague or Zack had done to them. The Weasley children may not think they are better than Muggles (though I'm not entirely sure about that either) but they certainly think they are better than Slytherins.

I never said it wasn't bad behavior. For me, the distinction is in whether or not the behavior is understandable and/or forgivable. When someone reacts to provocation and occasionally loses their temper that is understandable and forgivable, IMO. When someone acts out of cold calculation without provocation that is not understandable or forgivable, IMO.

I would have to disagree that the Weasleys ever displayed an attitude that they were superior to anyone on the basis of blood status - they didn't care about that sort of thing. I think the inter-house rivalries are separate from that because the students in each house would consider their house the best over the others to some extent. You see that type of thing in schools all over the world.

There was a scene in one of the books where Fred and George were hissing at newly sorted Slytherins.

Had to do some searching on that one. I don't see what the problem would be there - hissing at someone sorted into the house associated with snakes - I thought that was rather funny myself.

I never got that feeling that Zack was a jerk. I think he was entitled to ask Harry some questions since he was basically asking them to risk detention by joining his group. Also, the fact that he was curious about what happened at the Ministry was quite understandable. All students wanted to know. As for him making biased comments about Gryffindor, well so did Lee Jordan about Slytherins.

Zacharias attacked Harry right off the bat demanding "proof" that Voldemort had returned. He was antagonistic and rude and Harry rightfully called him on it by telling him that if he didn't believe Dumbledore, then he wasn't going to believe him and he wasn't going to waste an afternoon trying to convince him. Then he demanded that Harry tell them the details of Cedric's murder and his face was described as "aggressive" and Harry told him if that was the only reason he came to clear out. And then he accused Harry of trying to weasel out of teaching them when Harry was trying to explain that all of those situations they were talking about were not as grand as some people believed. He wasn't concerned about the risk of being in the DA - he was deliberately trying to provoke Harry. He does the same thing during a DA meeting later when he mocks Harry's choice to teach them Expelliarmus. Given that type of consistent behavior from Zacharias, I'd say it stands to reason that he was just as antagonistic and rude with Ginny on the train - we never saw him behave any other way.

There is a difference between Lee Jordan making comments about how the Slytherins were playing dirty when they actually were and Zacharias Smith making antagonistic accusations against Harry that were not true at all, IMO.

How much can having a temper excuse though? It seems as though whenever Ginny or Molly behave inappropiately the fans always shrug it off and say that they had a temper.

As I said above, Jo made a distinction between a person who occasionally loses their temper and reacts to being provoked and someone who acts with cold calculation and no provocation. Losing your temper on occasion is understandable and forgivable. That doesn't excuse bad behavior, but it makes it possible to forgive it.

I agree that Fleur was being rude and rather tactless herself. However one has to wonder which side started it all. I doubt Molly and Ginny immediately embraced Fleur as soon as they met her. I'm more inclined to think that they were hostile towards her from the beginning. With Molly, it was probably because she was being protective of her son. Ginny was probably just jealous of Fleur because she knew how Harry felt about her. Also, the scene at Christmas where they are all opening their presents and find a sweater from Molly there and Fleur hasn't received anything because Molly doesn't like her, that was just so rude IMO. How awful to be having lunch with your new family and everyone gets presents except you!

Since Fleur was also shown to be antagonistic and rude when she was first introduced in GOF, I would have to say that Molly was reacting to her behavior - she didn't believe that Fleur really loved Bill because of how she acted - neither did Ginny and Hermione. Ginny had the added frustration of Fleur treating her like she was three years old. Hermione already disliked Fleur because of her behavior in GOF - she was insulting towards Hogwarts then as well - and the affect she had on Ron so that was just a continuation for her.

In regards to Christmas, there is no indication that Fleur did not receive any presents at all. Harry only noted that Fleur was not wearing a sweater and assumed that meant Molly didn't make her one - they didn't open their presents as a group so he wouldn't know what presents Fleur got or what she didn't. We actually don't know if Molly made her one or not - it's just as likely that Molly did and Fleur didn't want to wear it - or just chose not to wear it at that time. Harry wouldn't have considered that because it never would have occurred to him not to wear the sweater Molly made for him.

Bellatrix wasn't responsible for Fred's death, Fred was killed by an explosion which was probably caused by accident anyway. Also, Molly didn't only killed her, she enjoyed doing it.

That is an assumption that is not supported by the text, IMO. Molly was angry and determined, but I didn't see any indication that she enjoyed killing Bellatrix.

As for Fred, it was implied that Bellatrix had something to do with Fred's death when she taunted Molly about "Freddy" being dead - how would she know which of Molly's children had died - particularly one of the twins - if she wasn't involved in some way?

HAve you changed your positions now? You've said that Narcissa would have sided with anyone who had Draco's best interests in mind and thus she was weak. You've also said that the difference between Narcissa and Molly was that Molly remained loyal to her side even though it meant danger to her children. Now you're saying that Narcissa did the same thing until she realized Voldemort would hurt Draco. But you agree that Molly would have also betrayed DD if he had intended to hurt one of her kids.

I don't recall ever saying that Narcissa would have sided with anyone who had Draco's best interests in mind. :huh: The text shows us just the opposite. The logical choice for Narcissa would have been to go to the Order - or even Dumbledore himself - when Draco was threatened, but she chose to stay loyal to Voldemort and merely sought to find a way for his plan to murder Dumbledore to be carried out without Draco being at risk. Part of the reason that I see Narcissa as such a negative character is the fact that she continued to go along with Voldemort's plans and sought ways to regain his favor throughout - I've said that all along.

However, I can see where you might have misconstrued what I was saying. I was talking about Narcissa's behavior in the final battle when it appeared that Voldemort had lost - that's when Narcissa stopped fighting and focused entirely on Draco. As far as she was concerned, it was over and she just gave up on it and abandoned the fight to look for Draco. Initially, she was certain that their status as "proper pure-bloods" would guarantee their safety. When Draco was threatened, she and Lucius continually sought ways to regain Voldemort's favor because they still believed in the cause and wanted Voldemort to win and the felt that they would be able to find a way for all to be "forgiven" so Draco wouldn't be in danger anymore. When it appeared that Voldemort was going to lose - they stopped fighting.

Molly never did that. No matter how bad the situation looked - even when they all believed that Harry had died and it appeared that all was lost - Molly kept fighting and let her children continue fighting - even Ginny. The difference between Molly and Narcissa in that aspect is that Molly knew from the beginning - when she joined the Order - that she was putting her entire family in danger by doing so where Narcissa maintained the illusion that her family would be completely safe because they were "proper pure bloods".

She was probably trying to comfort Narcissa by saying that she should consider it an honour. I agree that it isn't much comfort but Bellatrix is definitely not going to show affection in the way normal people do it. Besides, she did help them with the Vow and teach Draco Occlumency.

I can see where some might consider that possibility, but I never got that impression - Bellatrix was too cruel about it. It didn't come across as an attempt at comfort to me. It came across that she was deeply ashamed of Narcissa for being upset about Voldemort giving Draco what she considered an honor.

She did help with the Vow - once she had confirmed that Snape was in on the plan and Snape had made it clear that he had no intention of violating Voldemort's orders. We don't know if Draco asked her to teach him Occlumency or if Narcissa did, but at that time, Bellatrix was proud that Draco had been chosen for that task and that he - unlike his mother - was displaying proper pride in being given that "honor". After his failure, she wrote him off along with Lucius and Narcissa - she treated all three of them with mocking disdain in DH. Family was not important to Bellatrix from what we are shown.

How so?

Because of all the emphasis put on Molly's fears regarding her family and the fact that she was frequently shown not to be someone to cross.

It was a normal reaction for any mother, not just Molly. But prior to that moment we didn't know that Molly had such skills or that there was any reason for Molly to confront Bellatrix, a woman she had never met before and against whom she held no particular grudge. It would have made more sense for Molly to kill Dolohov, the man who killed her brothers.

Well, not all mothers would do that - sad fact of life - but I agree that most would. However, this is specifically about Molly and how she was characterized - she shown to be protective of her children and there was a lot of emphasis on her concerns about her family not all surviving. We didn't need to see what her skills were prior to that - we only need to see that one duel to know that Molly was a skilled duelist. And there didn't need to be a prior grudge - Bellatrix almost killing Ginny and implying that she had something to do with Fred's death was more than enough, IMO.

Dolohov was one of five Death Eaters responsible for killing Fabian and Gideon. Moody told Harry in OOTP that it took five Death Eaters to bring them down - which was another indication that Molly would have been skilled in her own right, IMO. Molly had no reason to blame him alone and not the other four - or Death Eaters in general - any more than Neville had a reason to hold a specific grudge against Bellatrix.

Would the old Draco Malfoy have nodded to his arch enemy, Harry Potter?

In a situation where there were witnesses - at Hogwarts that would have been teachers like McGonagall, Sprout, Flitwick, etc... - I would say he would have. Draco was never one to cause a public scene in a situation like that.

That reminds me of another character who also couldn't do much on his own and who also relied on his friends and a number of other characters. :lol:

Not sure what you're talking about there. Draco was the only character who was shown not to be able to act on his own at all, IMO. We see other characters helping each other out, but they are also shown to be able to do things on their own so there is a distinction there. Draco stands out for me in that regard.

But it is a valid reason. If you're never taught proper values then you won't have proper values.

Who taught Harry proper values? The Dursleys certainly didn't, but he demonstrated that he had good values from his introduction in the story. And what of Sirius? He was raised the same way as Narcissa, but he understood that type of behavior was wrong and those ideals were negative. As did Andromeda - Narcissa's other sister. So I would say that excuse doesn't work because we see other characters overcome that. Even Dudley was able to eventually overcome at least some of the damage his parents inflicted on him on his own. We just don't see that with Draco, IMO.

Of course not but what has that got to do with anything? I have already admitted that Narcissa was evil. I think she is like a dark Molly Weasley. It's just like when people compare Bellatrix to Ginny. They don't mean that Ginny could possibly kill or torture someone, it smply means that they have about the same type of personalities though on differents sides of the coin. That's the deal with Narcissa and Molly too. They are both loyal to a cause but more loyal to their families and they both have similar lifestyles.

I can't imagine anyone who has actually read the books seeing any similarity between Bellatrix and Ginny. :huh: They are complete opposites who don't have anything in common, IMO. I would say that the only thing that Molly and Narcissa have in common is that they are both mothers, but that would be where the comparison ends - they are complete opposites in every other aspect, IMO. The fact that Narcissa is evil is part of that because her personality traits go towards why she is evil. Just as Molly's personality traits go towards why she is good.

Trixa

June 15th, 2009, 1:22 pm

When someone acts out of cold calculation without provocation that is not understandable or forgivable, IMO.

Well, teasing is also quite common amongst young people so I wouldn't say Draco is a monster for doing that. Also, just because you were provoked doesn't mean you can react however you want to that provocation. If someone insults me and I kill him is that understandable or forgivable?

I think the inter-house rivalries are separate from that because the students in each house would consider their house the best over the others to some extent
I never got the impression that Fred and George thought their house was better than all houses. They didn't see to have a problem with either Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs.

Had to do some searching on that one. I don't see what the problem would be there - hissing at someone sorted into the house associated with snakes - I thought that was rather funny myself.
I don't think they were trying to be funny, they were being hostile IMO.

There is a difference between Lee Jordan making comments about how the Slytherins were playing dirty when they actually were and Zacharias Smith making antagonistic accusations against Harry that were not true at all, IMO.
Lee Jordan's comments were so biased and rude that McGonnagall had to reprimand him over and over again to make him quit it. It's the same with Zack.

Ginny had the added frustration of Fleur treating her like she was three years old.
Ginny always complains about being treated that way even though she gives people no reason to treat her otherwise. Whenever she tries to do something risky she merely gets herself and others in trouble.

In regards to Christmas, there is no indication that Fleur did not receive any presents at all. Harry only noted that Fleur was not wearing a sweater and assumed that meant Molly didn't make her one - they didn't open their presents as a group so he wouldn't know what presents Fleur got or what she didn't. We actually don't know if Molly made her one or not - it's just as likely that Molly did and Fleur didn't want to wear it - or just chose not to wear it at that time.
It says that Molly didn't want "to waste one on her". Receiving a sweater is sort of an acceptance into the Weasley family. Being the only person at the table not to get one is hurtful.

That is an assumption that is not supported by the text, IMO. Molly was angry and determined, but I didn't see any indication that she enjoyed killing Bellatrix.

She was all "she's mine, she's mine" when someone tried to help as though she didn't want anyone else to kill Bellatrix because then she wouldn't have that pleasure.

As for Fred, it was implied that Bellatrix had something to do with Fred's death when she taunted Molly about "Freddy" being dead - how would she know which of Molly's children had died - particularly one of the twins - if she wasn't involved in some way?
In the Potterverse everyone seems to know everyone's name. I've noticed that while reading DH. How would Ron, for example, know the name of a little known DE who attacked them in the cafeteria?

Molly never did that. No matter how bad the situation looked - even when they all believed that Harry had died and it appeared that all was lost - Molly kept fighting and let her children continue fighting - even Ginny
They started to fight when the Centaurs came and there was hope again. Besides, Molly and her family had to fight or they would have died. Voldemort would have killed them anyway since they had been part of the resistance and were blood traitors. So she had nothing to lose.

After his failure, she wrote him off along with Lucius and Narcissa - she treated all three of them with mocking disdain in DH.
That's not true at all. In the first chapter of DH Bellatrix intervenes when Voldemort is mocking Narcissa and Lucius thus getting mocked herself.

We don't know if Draco asked her to teach him Occlumency or if Narcissa did
Does it matter? The point is she did it.

Molly had no reason to blame him alone and not the other four - or Death Eaters in general - any more than Neville had a reason to hold a specific grudge against Bellatrix.
Dolohov, like Bellatrix, seems to have been a leader of that group otherwise Moody wouldn't have mentioned him. Molly didn't have to kill all those DEs to get her revenge and feel satisfied just like Neville didn't have to kill all the Lestranges to feel satisfied.

In a situation where there were witnesses - at Hogwarts that would have been teachers like McGonagall, Sprout, Flitwick, etc... - I would say he would have.
He never did. Besides, he didn't have to nod at Harry, he could have ignored him or give him a nasty look.

We didn't need to see what her skills were prior to that - we only need to see that one duel to know that Molly was a skilled duelist.
But that duel was important. If we had been shown Molly's skill before that, the duel would have been more believable and easier to enjoy. As it was, it simply left a lot of people sort of dumbfounded.

Not sure what you're talking about there.
I was talking about Harry.

Who taught Harry proper values? The Dursleys certainly didn't, but he demonstrated that he had good values from his introduction in the story. And what of Sirius? He was raised the same way as Narcissa, but he understood that type of behavior was wrong and those ideals were negative.
Harry didn't have any reason to hate muggleborns, since he wasn't raised with that hatred in his family. Sirius was probably influenced by his friends just like Andromeda was probably influenced by Ted.

I can't imagine anyone who has actually read the books seeing any similarity between Bellatrix and Ginny. They are complete opposites who don't have anything in common, IMO.
:lol: Well, they don't have too much in common but they're not entirely different either. Ginny is also supposed to be a powerful witch and she also seems to be a bit aggressive at times. Ginny, like Bellatrix entertained an unrequited love for a guy who didn't seem to know she existed, and was unable to let go of that love in order to make it work with someone else. They can both stand up for themselves and only submit to the person they've chosen to submit to. They're both a bit jealous.
There's probably a reason why Bellatrix and Ginny are sort of put together so many times in the books. Bellatrix is, for example, always keen on attacking Ginny whenever she meets her. Maybe she's a H/Hr shipper. :lol:

Narcissa have in common is that they are both mothers, but that would be where the comparison ends - they are complete opposites in every other aspect, IMO.
They are both mothers, they are both housewives, they are both almost entirely focused on their families, they've both picked a side in the war...

wickedwickedboy

June 16th, 2009, 6:24 am

meesha1971

June 16th, 2009, 4:26 pm

Well, teasing is also quite common amongst young people so I wouldn't say Draco is a monster for doing that. Also, just because you were provoked doesn't mean you can react however you want to that provocation. If someone insults me and I kill him is that understandable or forgivable?

Draco's behavior hardly qualifies as "teasing", IMO. His behavior was malicious and cruel.

Since none of the Weasleys killed someone - or tried to kill anyone - just because they were insulted, I don't see where that applies. Hexing someone so that their boogers flap around like bats is gross, but hardly life threatening.

However - as I have said repeatedly - I am not saying that excuses their behavior. Provocation goes towards the behavior being understandable and/or forgivable. If somone is continually insulting you and refuses to let up regardless of the number of times you ask them to stop and you lose your temper and hit them, it is bad behavior - but it is also understandable and forgivable because you were provoked into doing that. It's not something you would do under normal circumstances.

I never got the impression that Fred and George thought their house was better than all houses. They didn't see to have a problem with either Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs.

The other three houses got along with each other and their rivalry was on more friendly terms because none of them were engaging in the same extreme negative behavior that was consistently portrayed with the Slytherins as a group. But they each have pride in their particular house and consider it to be the best. That's normal, IMO.

I don't think they were trying to be funny, they were being hostile IMO.

There's nothing in the text to indicate that they were being malicious, IMO. They hissed at one Slytherin student after he was sorted. Considering that the animal associated with Slytherin house is the snake - and knowing the Weasley twins - it comes across more as sarcasm to me.

Lee Jordan's comments were so biased and rude that McGonnagall had to reprimand him over and over again to make him quit it. It's the same with Zack.

The difference between Lee Jordan's comments and Zacharias Smith's comments is that Lee was telling the truth and Zacharias was not. I never said it was good behavior for Lee to do that - the commentator should be objective and McGonagall was right to reprimand him when he lost his objectivity. Nor would I be surprised if Lee found himself to be the target of attacks from the Slytherins because of his comments. However, I do think that there is a significant distinction between Lee getting upset and losing his objectivity when the Slytherins cheated and Zacharias being malicious and insulting Harry personally - as well as the other members of the team individually - with made up accusations throughout his commentary.

Ginny always complains about being treated that way even though she gives people no reason to treat her otherwise. Whenever she tries to do something risky she merely gets herself and others in trouble.

I have no idea what you're talking about with that. :huh:

It says that Molly didn't want "to waste one on her". Receiving a sweater is sort of an acceptance into the Weasley family. Being the only person at the table not to get one is hurtful.

Actually, it says "on whom, it appeared, Mrs. Weasley had not wanted to waste one". That is Harry's point of view - he sees that Fleur is not wearing a sweater and assumes that Molly did not make her one because she didn't want her to marry Bill. But there is never any confirmation of his assumption in the text. We don't know if Molly made Fleur a sweater and she simply chose not to wear it or not - or if Molly gave her another present instead.

She was all "she's mine, she's mine" when someone tried to help as though she didn't want anyone else to kill Bellatrix because then she wouldn't have that pleasure.

There is a difference between being determined to take care of something yourself and deriving pleasure from it. I don't see anything there to indicate that Molly took pleasure in killing Bellatrix. I saw grim determination to make sure Bellatrix did not kill anyone else.

In the Potterverse everyone seems to know everyone's name. I've noticed that while reading DH. How would Ron, for example, know the name of a little known DE who attacked them in the cafeteria?

And yet people were constantly getting the twins mixed up. Even their best friend, Lee Jordan, had difficulty in telling them apart. For that matter, so did Molly sometimes - which gave us that very funny moment in PS/SS when they fooled her into thinking she had mixed them up. :lol: Bellatrix might know the names of Molly's children, but how would she know which twin was killed? They were identical. Bellatrix's comments implied that she had something to do with Fred's death and it was a direct threat towards Molly's other children as well.

They started to fight when the Centaurs came and there was hope again. Besides, Molly and her family had to fight or they would have died. Voldemort would have killed them anyway since they had been part of the resistance and were blood traitors. So she had nothing to lose.

She had everything to lose - her life, the lives of her family, the lives of her friends - they all had a lot to lose. But it was not the arrival of the Centaurs that motivated them to fight. They were already motivated to fight - nobody was willing to capitulate to Voldemort's demands even though it appeared that he had killed Harry. Nobody believed him when he claimed that Harry was killed while trying to run away.

And she did have a choice - the Weasleys were pure-bloods and Voldemort had already demonstrated that he would prefer not to kill pure-bloods. If they had been willing to capitulate to his demands, he would have let them live. But that was a choice that none of the Weasleys would have accepted - they wouldn't abandon their beliefs. They understood - as Harry came to understand - there are some things worth dying for.

That is the difference between Molly and Narcissa. Molly was afraid for her family, but she was willing to die fighting for what she believed in and accepted that they were willing to die fighting for it as well. Narcissa believed in a cause, but she was not willing to die for what she believed in - nor were Lucius and Draco.

That's not true at all. In the first chapter of DH Bellatrix intervenes when Voldemort is mocking Narcissa and Lucius thus getting mocked herself.

No, she doesn't. :huh: She didn't intervene at all while Voldemort was mocking them. When he was done, she says that she is honored to have him in the family home and there was no higher pleasure, but there is no indication that she did that for Narcissa, IMO. I would say the opposite - she was trying to separate herself so she wouldn't be included in the mocking. But she was anyway. The only time she includes Narcissa is when she wants to emphasize that they don't acknowledge Andromeda or her daughter as part of their family because Voldemort is mocking all of them about Lupin and Tonks. And, even then, she separates herself when she swears to do Voldemort's bidding and kill Tonks at the first opportunity to show him how loyal she was.

Does it matter? The point is she did it.

It matters that she did it at a time when she was pleased with Draco for showing proper pride in being given what she saw as an honor from Voldemort. Her attitude towards Draco drastically changed in DH when she was ashamed of all three of the Malfoys. Had he requested something from her then, she wouldn't have done it, IMO.

Dolohov, like Bellatrix, seems to have been a leader of that group otherwise Moody wouldn't have mentioned him. Molly didn't have to kill all those DEs to get her revenge and feel satisfied just like Neville didn't have to kill all the Lestranges to feel satisfied.

Moody never mentioned Dolohov. :huh: All he told Harry was that it took five Death Eaters to kill Gideon and Fabian Prewitt. Harry found out Dolohov was one of them after he escaped and it was mentioned in the article. There's nothing to indicate that he was the leader of the group.

Revenge is never a good answer - as Harry realized in POA when he stopped Lupin and Sirius from exacting revenge on Pettigrew - and I'm glad Jo didn't show any of them doing anything along those lines because it's such a negative thing, IMO. Molly's brothers weren't killed because of some personal grievance with Dolohov - they were killed because they were fighting in a war and Dolohov happened to be among the five opponent they were fighting at that time. The Longbottoms weren't tortured into insanity because of a personal grievance with Bellatrix. They were tortured because somebody sent that group of Death Eaters to their home believing they had information as to Voldemort's whereabouts. All of that was due to the war with Voldemort. As Harry figured out for himself when he learned about what happened to the Longbottoms - Voldemort was responsible for all of that. Bellatrix and Dolohov were never anything more than tools in Voldemort's arsenal. As such, Molly and Neville both focused on the cause rather than individual weapons - and I see that as a good thing.

There was a point when I thought Neville might be the one to face Bellatrix in the end. However, I never expected him to seek out revenge like that. I figured that it would be a situation similar to what was shown in OOTP where Bellatrix tried to use Neville to get Harry to hand over the prophecy and Neville would be forced to defend himself against her. I never saw Neville targeting Bellatrix specifically any more than I would have expected Molly to target Dolohov. That's something the Death Eaters would do, IMO.

He never did. Besides, he didn't have to nod at Harry, he could have ignored him or give him a nasty look.

A curt nod is not much better, IMO. Draco would put on an act for the teachers - well, most of the teachers. It wasn't necessary for him to do that around Snape so he was always nasty when Snape was around. But for McGonagall or Flitwick - he put on a show. And I would say that's all that curt nod was - a show because they were in public and other people were around. Honestly, I don't see Draco's attitude towards Harry as being all that different from Snape's in regards to James because Draco comes across as being very bitter about Harry saving his life with that curt nod.

But that duel was important. If we had been shown Molly's skill before that, the duel would have been more believable and easier to enjoy. As it was, it simply left a lot of people sort of dumbfounded.

I don't see why. It was shown on page that she handled herself well in that duel - that's all we needed to see, IMO. I would say that makes it believable. And the majority of the reactions that I've seen regarding that duel have been positive - they loved it. And the few negative comments I have seen were primarily due to surprise at Molly saying "Not my daughter, you *****" because they felt the swearing was unnecessary.

I was talking about Harry.

Harry? :huh: Harry was shown to be able to function quite well on his own. He was able to cook for himself, clean up after himself, showed responsibility in managing his money even though he had a fortune in Gringott's. We even see him taking care of himself on his own in POA when he spent the last few weeks of the summer break in Diagon Alley. There was never any question of Harry being able to function as an adult in the world, IMO. The fact that Harry faced extreme circumstances involving difficult tasks that one person could not do alone doesn't really apply to being able to function out in the world as an adult - that's not what I was talking about.

Harry didn't have any reason to hate muggleborns, since he wasn't raised with that hatred in his family. Sirius was probably influenced by his friends just like Andromeda was probably influenced by Ted.

Sirius understood that his parents ideology was wrong long before he ever met James. He demonstrated that in the memory that Harry saw in DH where they met on the Hogwarts Express their first year. Andromeda might have had some influence on him since he comments on her being his favorite cousin - before she was banned from the family anyway. And there were other family members that he met before they were banned from the family for not believing in pure-blood supremacy. But that is actually the point - there were positive influences around all of them they could draw from. Andromeda didn't share her family's ideology and Narcissa could have learned from that - but she didn't. She made a choice to ignore the positive influences and follow the negative ones.

Harry was abused and neglected for 10 year by muggles. He could have very easily gone the other way and been prejudiced against muggles because of the way the Dursleys treated him. But he didn't. In spite of their abuse - in spite of never receiving an ounce of affection from them - he demonstrates that he understands that not all muggles are like that - he understands that love and family are important in spite of never really having those things after his parents died. Harry figured that out on his own because he did not ignore the positive influences that were around him.

:lol: Well, they don't have too much in common but they're not entirely different either. Ginny is also supposed to be a powerful witch and she also seems to be a bit aggressive at times. Ginny, like Bellatrix entertained an unrequited love for a guy who didn't seem to know she existed, and was unable to let go of that love in order to make it work with someone else. They can both stand up for themselves and only submit to the person they've chosen to submit to. They're both a bit jealous.
There's probably a reason why Bellatrix and Ginny are sort of put together so many times in the books. Bellatrix is, for example, always keen on attacking Ginny whenever she meets her. Maybe she's a H/Hr shipper. :lol:

:huh: Ginny was a powerful witch, but her aggression only came out when she was provoked - she didn't revel in violence or randomly attack people for fun like Bellatrix. Ginny's feelings for Harry were unrequited, but there was always a chance that he might notice her one day - however slim it might have appeared to her. Even so, she was able to put that aside and, rather than sitting around wasting her life waiting for Harry to notice her, she had two long-term, committed relationships - each lasting about a year. And neither of those relationships ended because of Ginny's feelings for Harry - there were other issues that resulted in Ginny realizing that they were simply not compatible. I don't recall Ginny ever submitting to anyone - not sure where you're getting that. Everyone displays jealousy at some point in their lives - that's human nature - not a personality trait. So, again, I don't see any similarity between the two. I see them as complete opposites in every way.

They are both mothers, they are both housewives, they are both almost entirely focused on their families, they've both picked a side in the war...

They are both mothers. Molly is a housewife. Narcissa is the wife of a wealthy, prominent man who has servants to take care of all the household duties for her. Two entirely different things, IMO. Molly was never entirely focused on her family in the same manner as Narcissa, IMO.

But, really, you are describing superficial circumstances that would apply to numerous people who have nothing in common whatsoever. Molly and Narcissa were not the only mothers in the HP series. Nor were they the only women who were married. Nor were they the only people who picked a side during the war. I would say that none of those things apply in regards to whether two people are alike because that comes down to their personalities - not whether they are married or have kids. Molly and Narcissa are complete opposites in terms of their personalities, IMO.

Trixa

June 16th, 2009, 5:13 pm

But that commonality exists between a lot of witches. Hermione was also powerful and gifted - she too could be aggressive at times. I recall her even resorting to a punch in the nose. She also stands up for herself and submits where she choses to and can be a bit jealous. So I don't think these factors show distinct common elements for Ginny and Bella - Hermione could fit that mold, imo - Tonks as well.

I don't see Tonks as having the temper that both Ginny and Bella seem to have. I wouldn't compare Hermione to Bellatrix either since the most important thing about Hermione is the fact that she is an intellectual and Bellatrix never struck me as a woman who loved school and books just like Ginny doesn't either. They are both more sporty than bookish, IMO. A little jealousy is normal but Ginny's goes over the top sometimes.

There's nothing in the text to indicate that they were being malicious, IMO
Well, it doesn't say Bellatrix was being malicious when she tortured Hermione either but it is easy to infer it. That's how I interpreted that comment anyway.

The difference between Lee Jordan's comments and Zacharias Smith's comments is that Lee was telling the truth and Zacharias was not.
Calling a fat person fat is also the truth but it doesn't make it nice. If McGonagall intervened then there must have been something inappropiate about Lee's comments.

I have no idea what you're talking about with that.
Ginny tried to steal the sword and she got into trouble. Ginny tried to defeat Bellatrix and she got into trouble. I'm not saying these things were Ginny's idea as I know she was part of a group on both occasions but it's funny how whenever she tries to do something it goes bad.

Actually, it says "on whom, it appeared, Mrs. Weasley had not wanted to waste one". That is Harry's point of view - he sees that Fleur is not wearing a sweater and assumes that Molly did not make her one because she didn't want her to marry Bill. But there is never any confirmation of his assumption in the text. We don't know if Molly made Fleur a sweater and she simply chose not to wear it or not - or if she gave her another present instead.

Harry's "theory" and the fact that it was never contradicted along with Molly's attitude towards Fleur gives me little reason to think she did receive one. Sorry.

There is a difference between being determined to take care of something yourself and deriving pleasure from it.
If it was all about protecting Ginny then she shouldn't care who killed Bellatrix as long as Ginny was safe.

And yet people were constantly getting the twins mixed up. Even their best friend, Lee Jordan, had difficulty in telling them apart. Bellatrix might know the names of Molly's children, but how would she know which twin was killed? They were identical. Bellatrix's comments implied that she had something to do with Fred's death and it was a direct threat towards Molly's other children as well.

Even if she killed Fred, how would that explain her knowing his name? She probably saw Molly crying over his body and heard people shout his name or something.

If they had been willing to capitulate to his demands, he would have let them live. But that was a choice that none of the Weasleys would have accepted - they wouldn't abandon their beliefs. They understood - as Harry came to understand - there are some things worth dying for.

They fought out of loyalty towards Harry and Fred, not so much because of the cause itself.

No, she doesn't. She didn't intervene at all while Voldemort was mocking them. When he was done, she says that she is honored to have him in the family home and there was no higher pleasure, but there is no indication that she did that for Narcissa, IMO. I would say the opposite - she was trying to separate herself so she wouldn't be included in the mocking. But she was anyway.
Voldemort accuses the Malfoys of being unfaithful and she intervenes so he would leave them alone. She had no reason to defend herself as Voldemort hadn't said anything negative about her up to that point.

Her attitude towards Draco drastically changed in DH when she was ashamed of all three of the Malfoys.
She wasn't ashamed of them as they were in the same situation. She and Lucius fought over who would summon Voldemort but that was just their usual rivalry.

Revenge is never a good answer
Yet Molly killed Bellatrix.

The Longbottoms weren't tortured into insanity because of a personal grievance with Bellatrix. They were tortured because somebody sent that group of Death Eaters to their home believing they had information as to Voldemort's whereabouts.
Nobody sent them. Voldemort was dead at the time and Bellatrix is unlikely to take orders from anyone else.

I don't see why.
Because otherwise it's just random. It's like Lee Jordan coming and finishing off Voldemort.

Ginny was a powerful witch, but her aggression only came out when she was provoked - she didn't revel in violence and randomly attack people for fun like Bellatrix.
I never said she did. They don't have to both be evil in order to be comparable. Ginny may be Bella's equivalent on the good side. Besides, even Harry thinks they're alike. :lol:

Ginny's feelings for Harry were unrequited, but there was always a chance that he might notice her one day - however slim it might have appeared to her. Even so, she was able to put that aside and, rather than sitting around wasting her life waiting for Harry to notice her, she had two long-term, committed relationships - each lasting about a year. And neither of those relationships ended because of Ginny's feelings for Harry - there were other issues that resulted in Ginny realizing that they were simply not compatible.
Ginny dumped one of her boyfriends because he was supset about a Quidditch game and the other for, basically, being a gentleman. I find it hard to believe that she loved those guys or cared about them in any way.

I don't recall Ginny ever submitting to anyone - not sure where you're getting that.
Maybe not submit but she seems less...eh...fiesty when it comes to Harry. Especially after they're boyfriend and girlfriend.

But, really, you are describing superficial circumstances that would apply to numerous people who have nothing in common whatsoever. Molly and Narcissa were not the only mothers in the HP series. Nor were they the only women who were married. Nor were they the only people who picked a side during the war. I would say that none of those things apply in regards to whether two people are alike because that comes down to their personalities - not whether they are married or have kids. Molly and Narcissa are complete opposites in terms of their personalities.
Molly and Narcissa are the only two characters in the books who strongly represent motherhood, albeit two different mothering styles. Molly may be an Order member but most of the times we see her in her mothering role just like everytime we see Narcissa, we see her as a mother to Draco. Petunia also seems to be like that but she is slightly more interesting than the two because of her relationship with Lily and her desire to be a witch.
I don't think Molly and Narcissa are alike as people at all. But they are similar types of characters.

Anhelda

June 16th, 2009, 7:35 pm

And yet people were constantly getting the twins mixed up. Even their best friend, Lee Jordan, had difficulty in telling them apart. For that matter, so did Molly sometimes - which gave us that very funny moment in PS/SS when they fooled her into thinking she had mixed them up. Bellatrix might know the names of Molly's children, but how would she know which twin was killed? They were identical. Bellatrix's comments implied that she had something to do with Fred's death and it was a direct threat towards Molly's other children as well.

Actually, at this point in the series, it was very easy to distinguish between the twins, owing to George missing an ear.

Carry on with your discussion....

wickedwickedboy

June 17th, 2009, 3:33 am

meesha1971

June 17th, 2009, 5:27 am

I don't see Tonks as having the temper that both Ginny and Bella seem to have. I wouldn't compare Hermione to Bellatrix either since the most important thing about Hermione is the fact that she is an intellectual and Bellatrix never struck me as a woman who loved school and books just like Ginny doesn't either. They are both more sporty than bookish, IMO. A little jealousy is normal but Ginny's goes over the top sometimes.

I see Ginny's temper more in line with Hermione's than Bellatrix's actually. Hermione was intelligent, but she was also a normal teenage girl with a nasty temper herself. And I don't see where Ginny ever goes over the top with jealousy. Both Ginny and Hermione had their bouts with jealousy - I think Hermione's were more extreme, but the circumstances were different since there had actually been a date with Ron in the offering at the time. But, overall, I would say that both of them behaved like normal, teenage girls in that regard.

Well, it doesn't say Bellatrix was being malicious when she tortured Hermione either but it is easy to infer it. That's how I interpreted that comment anyway.

I didn't see anything malicious about it - they weren't booing or jeering - they just made a hissing sound. Since the symbol for Slytherin house is a snake, it comes across to me as more of a sarcastic joke.

Calling a fat person fat is also the truth but it doesn't make it nice. If McGonagall intervened then there must have been something inappropiate about Lee's comments.

I never said Lee was nice about it - just that his comments were truthful and provoked by the Slytherins actually cheating. That is a distinction from Zacharias making things up to try and insult Harry and individual members of the Gryffindor team individually in front of the entire school, IMO.

Ginny tried to steal the sword and she got into trouble. Ginny tried to defeat Bellatrix and she got into trouble. I'm not saying these things were Ginny's idea as I know she was part of a group on both occasions but it's funny how whenever she tries to do something it goes bad.

I don't think anyone actually would have been able to pull of stealing the sword from Snape's office - particularly with the school in the state it was at that time with Snape as Headmaster. However, I don't fault Ginny, Neville, and Luna for trying - I do think it was Ginny's idea because she would have been the only one of the three who knew about Dumbledore leaving the sword to Harry. I think the important thing was that they tried because they wanted to help Harry. And, in the end, that turned out to be a very good thing because it led to Harry discovering that the sword could be used to destroy Horcruxes. Harry would never have figured that out if Ginny, Neville, and Luna hadn't made an attempt to steal it. Even Hermione didn't have a clue why Dumbledore would have left it to Harry. So, while it didn't go according to plan, they did in fact help Harry by doing that.

And I wouldn't say Ginny was doing badly in dueling Bellatrix along with Hermione and Luna either - particularly considering the differences in age, knowledge, and experience. After all, Bellatrix wasn't able to hit Ginny with her curse. ;)

Harry's "theory" and the fact that it was never contradicted along with Molly's attitude towards Fleur gives me little reason to think she did receive one. Sorry.

Well, I'm not saying that she did or didn't - just pointing out that there is no confirmation either way as to whether Harry's assumption was right or wrong. However, whether Molly made Fleur a Weasley sweater or not, there is no indication that they did not get Fleur a present at all.

Given the circumstances, I felt is was very understandable that Molly had doubts about Bill and Fleur's relationship and was reluctant to accept Fleur as part of the family. Fleur's behavior was a large part of that and the fact that she was part Veela was a factor as well. I wondered if Fleur had used her powers on Bill myself when it first came up in OOTP because we had already been shown that she would stoop to that on occasion with her trying to use her powers to get Cedric to ask her to the Yule Ball and Ron getting a blast of it. And she had an affect on the guys even without deliberately using her powers - it was just more intense when she did. I had the impression that the reverse was true in regards to females - men were attracted, women were irritated. It reminded me of the set up of the love potion in the movie Love Potion #9 actually - the potion attracted people of the opposite gender but caused anger in people of the same gender. That's how I always saw the Veela. I always felt it was necessary for Fleur to do something to prove that she wasn't just using Bill and did genuinely love him because of those things.

If it was all about protecting Ginny then she shouldn't care who killed Bellatrix as long as Ginny was safe.

It wasn't all about protecting Ginny - it was about protecting all of them. Molly was determined to stop Bellatrix herself, but I saw it as grim determination - not pleasure. She didn't enjoy it, but she felt it was necessary, IMO.

Even if she killed Fred, how would that explain her knowing his name? She probably saw Molly crying over his body and heard people shout his name or something.

The Death Eaters were not in the castle at that time so Bellatrix would not have had the opportunity to learn Fred's identity that way. And I don't think she would have had any way of knowing which twin lost an ear - particularly with George being in the guise of Harry at the time. It seems more likely to me that Bellatrix was nearby when Fred died and heard Percy yelling - “No! Fred! No!”

Bellatrix's comments are indicative that she was responsible for the attack that blew up that corridor - it was not the Death Eaters that Fred and Percy were fighting. Harry never saw who it was - just noted that it was a terrible attack. Bellatrix taunts Molly by saying "What will happen to your children when I've killed you" and she implies her involvement in Fred's death by saying "When Mummy's gone the same way as Freddie?" In order for Molly to go the same way as Fred, the same person would have to be responsible for both deaths, IMO.

I'm not saying that's definite - Bellatrix was insane and it's possible that she was simply nearby when that attack happened and heard Percy yelling Fred's name. However, none of them saw who blew up the corridor and Molly wasn't in that corridor at the time. So I'm looking at that in regards to what Molly would think when she heard Bellatrix say that she would go the same way as Fred when Bellatrix killed her. I think the implication that Bellatrix was responsible for Fred's death and the threat to her other children - all of them, not just Ginny - made Molly more determined to finish that. Not for revenge, but to stop Bellatrix from killing anyone else.

They fought out of loyalty towards Harry and Fred, not so much because of the cause itself.

That is a huge assumption that is not supported by the text at all, IMO. Molly and Arthur did not join the Order because of Harry and Fred was still alive then. They knew when they signed on that it would eventually come down to a battle. They signed on to fight because they believed that Voldemort should be stopped. They were loyal to Dumbledore - and he knew that he could count on them.

Voldemort accuses the Malfoys of being unfaithful and she intervenes so he would leave them alone. She had no reason to defend herself as Voldemort hadn't said anything negative about her up to that point.

She doesn't intervene. To intervene is to interrupt - and Bellatrix did not interrupt Voldemort at all. Nor did she give any defense for her sister or Lucius. She waited until Voldemort was done humiliating them, and drew his attention to her by pointing out how honored she is to have him there - she wasn't including Narcissa or Lucius in that, IMO. She wasn't defending herself - merely jumping at an opportunity to declare how honored she was to have him there.

She wasn't ashamed of them as they were in the same situation. She and Lucius fought over who would summon Voldemort but that was just their usual rivalry.

I would have to disagree because she showed deep disgust and shame towards all three of them - particularly in Malfoy Manor when she and Lucius were arguing about who should summon Voldemort. She insults Draco and provokes Narcissa. She sneers at Lucius and tells him that he has no authority in his own home. That was not usual for them - they certainly didn't behave that way at the Ministry in OOTP and Bellatrix had no problem in accepting Lucius as being in charge of that mission. Bellatrix was mocking all of them and showed that she was deeply ashamed of them, IMO.

Yet Molly killed Bellatrix.

Molly defended her daughter and others - she was not looking to exact revenge.

Nobody sent them. Voldemort was dead at the time and Bellatrix is unlikely to take orders from anyone else.

They were sent.

The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him

No, they weren’t, they were very definitely sent after Neville’s parents. I can’t say too much about this because it touches too closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it, but the Lestranges were not in on the secret.

Who sent them was never revealed because it wasn't significant to the story as Jo never intended to have Neville go after Bellatrix for revenge. But they were definitely sent there by someone else.

Because otherwise it's just random. It's like Lee Jordan coming and finishing off Voldemort.

Random occurrences are always possible in any story. In fact, Jo did set up two different scenarios in regards to Harry having a piece of Voldemort's soul and having to die in order for Voldemort to be defeated. The one she finally decided on was him choosing to return after Voldemort killed him in the forest. The other scenario was that Harry would die and someone else would defeat Voldemort after he was dead. That could have been anyone once all the Horcruxes were destroyed. We could just as easily have ended up with Harry dying and choosing not to return while Lee Jordon rode in on a white charger and lopped off Voldemort's head with Gryffindor's sword.

The same applies to Bellatrix. More so because there was never any definitive set up for her to be killed by any specific character within the books. Jo could have chosen anyone to duel Bellatrix and kill her in that chapter and it still would have worked because it was a battle - anyone was fair game. It could have been Hermione, Ginny, or Luna getting of a lucky shot and defeating her - it could have been McGonagall - it could have been Professor Trelawney scoring a direct hit on Bellatrix's head with one of the crystal balls she was lobbing at the Death Eaters - it could have been some random Auror that we'd never met before - Harry could have tripped over her corpse and never known who took her out. Simply put, it never really mattered who killed Bellatrix in regards to the overall story. Jo chose Molly for that scenario because she liked the "mother vs. anti-mother" symbolism. But she could have gone with anyone else and it still would have worked.

I never said she did. They don't have to both be evil in order to be comparable. Ginny may be Bella's equivalent on the good side. Besides, even Harry thinks they're alike. :lol:

I don't recall Harry ever comparing Ginny to Bellatrix. :huh:

I wouldn't say that Ginny is comparable to Bellatrix in any way. I see them as complete opposites. Not just in terms of good and evil, but in their personality traits as well.

Ginny dumped one of her boyfriends because he was supset about a Quidditch game and the other for, basically, being a gentleman. I find it hard to believe that she loved those guys or cared about them in any way.

Ginny broke up with Michael because he was being a poor sport about Gryffindor beating Ravenclaw at Quidditch. That makes sense to me because it showed a lack of maturity on Michael's part for him to sulk just because his girlfriend's house team beat his house team. And considering that Michael left Ginny's side and went immediately to Cho's to comfort her for the loss, I'd say the relationship had run its course regardless. It sounds to me like Michael already had his eye on Cho.

As for Dean, they had been having problems and arguing a lot for a while - Hermione told Harry that they'd been rocky for ages. They were headed for a break up regardless. I think it is significant that Harry facilitated that last argument through his use of Felix Felicis though. And I don't think Ginny should be blamed for that myself - she had no way of knowing that it wasn't Dean pushing her and it sounds like something they'd argued about before. Perhaps Dean considered it gentlemanly, but when you're asked to stop doing something and keep doing it anyway, it stops being gentlemanly and just becomes annoying, IMO. Really, I wouldn't say that anyone was at fault there - that relationship had run its course as well.

I wouldn't say that Ginny was in love with either Michael or Dean, but I do believe that she cared about them because she did date each of them for about a year. If she didn't like them, she wouldn't have done that. Both relationships started off okay, but didn't work out in the end because they realized that they weren't compatible. I think this is very normal for teenagers - a lot of teenage girls would have dated a lot more than two guys over a period of two years. So I think the length of each relationship does demonstrate that Ginny did care for them - she just didn't love them. Those were learning experiences for her. The same as Cho was a learning experience for Harry, Krum and McLaggen were learning experiences for Hermione, and Lavender was a learning experience for Ron.

Maybe not submit but she seems less...eh...fiesty when it comes to Harry. Especially after they're boyfriend and girlfriend.

I never saw any different in Ginny after she started dating Harry so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Molly and Narcissa are the only two characters in the books who strongly represent motherhood, albeit two different mothering styles. Molly may be an Order member but most of the times we see her in her mothering role just like everytime we see Narcissa, we see her as a mother to Draco. Petunia also seems to be like that but she is slightly more interesting than the two because of her relationship with Lily and her desire to be a witch.
I don't think Molly and Narcissa are alike as people at all. But they are similar types of characters.

Molly and Narcissa are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of the type of character they are, IMO. They're both mothers, but they're parenting styles are completely opposite - as are their circumstances. The reason we only see them when they have their kids with them is because it is from Harry's point of view - the only time he's going to see either of them would be in situations when they were not at school and the kids are most likely going to be around at those times. That doesn't limit their role in the story to the fact that they're both mothers. It just shows that Harry is not going to have an opportunity see either of them at any other time.

And that makes sense because Harry is a student. The only time he could go to the Burrow would be during the holiday when the other kids are around. And the only time he was going to run into the Malfoys in any capacity would be at Diagon Alley - where Harry only goes once each year to buy school supplies - or an event like the World Cup. There's no believable scenario for Harry to be around either Molly or Narcissa without their kids being around, IMO. That doesn't have anything to do with them being mothers, IMO. It simply is not feasible for Harry to be around either of them outside of that capacity, IMO.

Actually, at this point in the series, it was very easy to distinguish between the twins, owing to George missing an ear.

Carry on with your discussion....

You would still have to wonder - particularly since George was in the guise of Harry at the time - how Bellatrix would know which twin lost an ear. I never had the impression that any of them were on a first name basis with the Weasley family in general - Lucius and Arthur addressed each other by name because they had contact through Lucius dealings at the Ministry, but the children were not. Draco didn't know who Ron specifically for example - he just figured Ron "must be a Weasley" because of general comments his father had made about them.

Trixa

June 17th, 2009, 9:58 am

Bella sporty? :lol:. That kind of hit me out of left field. What gave you the impression that Bella was sporty or even into sports as a spectator? I'm having a hard time imagining that one. Prior to Azkaban, where she went a little nutty, I would figure she was more like her sister - with a high class tooty fruity, don't get me dirty attitude.

In terms of dueling, if you consider dueling a sport, then she is. Dueling is as much a sport as Quidditch, IMO.

And I don't see where Ginny ever goes over the top with jealousy.
She was jealous of an eleven year old.

I didn't see anything malicious about it - they weren't booing or jeering - they just made a hissing sound. Since the symbol for Slytherin house is a snake, it comes across to me as more of a sarcastic joke.
To me, it came across as almost threatening. Like they were saying "you're dead, dude."

I never said Lee was nice about it - just that his comments were truthful and provoked by the Slytherins actually cheating. That is a distinction from Zacharias making things up to try and insult Harry and individual members of the Gryffindor team individually in front of the entire school, IMO.
Didn't Zack say that Harry only keeps Ron on the team because they are friends? It might not have been true, but it was certainly a legitimate suspicion.

And I wouldn't say Ginny was doing badly in dueling Bellatrix along with Hermione and Luna either - particularly considering the differences in age, knowledge, and experience. After all, Bellatrix wasn't able to hit Ginny with her curse.
Ginny "dances" her way out of curses, like Amycus said. But anyway, I'm not accusing her personally of always failing but it's interesting how whenever she is involved in something it goes bad, especially since we are meant to see her as powerful and independent and all that.

Well, I'm not saying that she did or didn't - just pointing out that there is no confirmation either way as to whether Harry's assumption was right or wrong. However, whether Molly made Fleur a Weasley sweater or not, there is no indication that they did not get Fleur a present at all.
Yeah, but still... they all got a sweater and she didn't and it was clear what that sweater symbolizes. I'm with Harry on this one, as I've said before.

It wasn't all about protecting Ginny - it was about protecting all of them.
"Not, my daughter!" Translation: "you can definitely have the bushy haired one or the odd looking one." :lol:

The Death Eaters were not in the castle at that time so Bellatrix would not have had the opportunity to learn Fred's identity that way.
I meant when she returned with Voldemort.

Harry never saw who it was - just noted that it was a terrible attack. Bellatrix taunts Molly by saying "What will happen to your children when I've killed you" and she implies her involvement in Fred's death by saying "When Mummy's gone the same way as Freddie?" In order for Molly to go the same way as Fred, the same person would have to be responsible for both deaths, IMO.

In order for Molly to "go the same way as Freddie", Bellatrix would have to blow up a wall in her face and I don't think she was intending to go through all that trouble. It might simply mean that Molly would die.

That is a huge assumption that is not supported by the text at all, IMO. Molly and Arthur did not join the Order because of Harry and Fred was still alive then. They knew when they signed on that it would eventually come down to a battle. They signed on to fight because they believed that Voldemort should be stopped. They were loyal to Dumbledore - and he knew that he could count on them.
The Weasleys never had any reason not be loyal to DD and fight for him. The Malfoys were betrayed by Voldemort and they realized they were in danger. That's why they left the fight. Just like Molly would have stopped fighting for someone who intended to hrut one of her sons.

She doesn't intervene. To intervene is to interrupt - and Bellatrix did not interrupt Voldemort at all. Nor did she give any defense for her sister or Lucius. She waited until Voldemort was done humiliating them, and drew his attention to her by pointing out how honored she is to have him there - she wasn't including Narcissa or Lucius in that, IMO. She wasn't defending herself - merely jumping at an opportunity to declare how honored she was to have him there.

It's not nice to interrupt. :p No but really, she says something about how it's an honour to have him in "our family's house so she was including them in some manner. I's not like she said; "I still love you, my lord even though my sister and her husband want you dead."

That was not usual for them - they certainly didn't behave that way at the Ministry in OOTP and Bellatrix had no problem in accepting Lucius as being in charge of that mission.
Yes, she had. She was making plans about how they would all torture Ginny until Harry gives them the prophecy. Then she attempted to smash the prophecy and fought with Lucius when he stoped her. Then she gave orders about how they would torture Neville until Harry gives them the Prophecy.

Molly defended her daughter and others - she was not looking to exact revenge.

Saving Ginny and killing Bellatrix aren't the same thing.

Random occurrences are always possible in any story
And never pleasant, IMO.

We could just as easily have ended up with Harry dying and choosing not to return while Lee Jordon rode in on a white charger and lopped off Voldemort's head with Gryffindor's sword.
And that would have been okay?

Jo chose Molly for that scenario because she liked the "mother vs. anti-mother" symbolism.
And she managed to offend both mothers and working women. :lol:

I don't recall Harry ever comparing Ginny to Bellatrix
He does so right before Voldemort kills him. He looks at Bellatrix and thinks of Ginny.

Ginny broke up with Michael because he was being a poor sport about Gryffindor beating Ravenclaw at Quidditch. That makes sense to me because it showed a lack of maturity on Michael's part for him to sulk just because his girlfriend's house team beat his house team. And considering that Michael left Ginny's side and went immediately to Cho's to comfort her for the loss, I'd say the relationship had run its course regardless. It sounds to me like Michael already had his eye on Cho.
Ginny already had her eye on Harry. It still seems to me as though those relationships were highly superficial. It doubt they did anything else than snog and I think it was because Ginny never got over Harry.

I never saw any different in Ginny after she started dating Harry so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
She goes to the Room of Requirement when he tells her to. She names her kids after people he loved. She doesn't seem to have any objections to anything Harry does.

That doesn't have anything to do with them being mothers, IMO. It simply is not feasible for Harry to be around either of them outside of that capacity, IMO.
The readers also only see them as mothers and that's what counts. What we see is what we're going to remember when analyzing a character. Otherwise, it's just like saying that Bellatrix is a really nice person but Harry only sees her when she's being nasty. JKR shows us what she wants us to see, what she deems as being important. Narcissa's and Molly's mothering roles are what is important about them.

Carry on with your discussion....
You're welcome to join, if you want to. :)

meesha1971

June 19th, 2009, 12:55 pm

In terms of dueling, if you consider dueling a sport, then she is. Dueling is as much a sport as Quidditch, IMO.

I think there's a difference between dueling in a competition for points and attacking people with the goal of torturing and/or killing them.

She was jealous of an eleven year old.

An 11-year-old who was also part veela and had a crush on Harry. She'd spent the previous summer seeing the affect that Fleur had on Ron and Harry without deliberately using her powers. Harry was not affected as strongly as Ron, but he wasn't completely immune to veela influence either.

As such, it never came across to me that Ginny was jealous of Gabrielle in the sense of seeing her as genuine competition for Harry. It seemed to be a more complex issue to me with Gabrielle being part veela and having a crush on Harry.

What stood out to me with all of that was the negative aspect of the veela powers. We were shown veela as a group using their powers to influence and control men. We were shown Fleur using her veela power in an attempt to control and influence Cedric to ask her to the Yule Ball. And we were shown the negative effects that could have through Ron's reaction to it. And Ginny demonstrated a concern towards veela in general in her comments to Harry - which I see as a legitimate concern because so much emphasis was put on the negative aspect of them using their powers to control and influence men.

That was also why I completely understood why Molly was so concerned about Fleur in HBP. I felt that the possibility that Fleur was using her powers to control and influence Bill was a legitimate concern and it was necessary for Fleur to prove that her feelings for Bill were genuine.

To me, it came across as almost threatening. Like they were saying "you're dead, dude."

There's nothing given in the text to indicate that it was threatening. Harry just notes that they made a hissing sound.

Didn't Zack say that Harry only keeps Ron on the team because they are friends? It might not have been true, but it was certainly a legitimate suspicion.

Zacharias made comments like that about the entire team. Since both Ron and Ginny had been on the team the previous year when Angelina was captain and Harry got banned - with Ginny playing well throughout and Ron playing very well in the last game - I disagree that it was a legitimate suspicion - particularly with him dragging the rest of the team into it. It was presented as a nasty, unfounded insinuation based on his personal dislike of Harry.

Ginny "dances" her way out of curses, like Amycus said. But anyway, I'm not accusing her personally of always failing but it's interesting how whenever she is involved in something it goes bad, especially since we are meant to see her as powerful and independent and all that.

A lot of things can be compared to a dance - that was just alliteration regarding Ginny dodging curses. Things went wrong on occasion whether Ginny was involved or not. In PS/SS, Harry's initial plan was for them to just keep an eye on Snape and the third floor corridor - but it didn't work out because McGonagall shooed him and Ron back to their dormitory and Hermione got stuck talking to Flitwick and couldn't follow Snape. In COS, Hermione brews the polyjuice potion for them to try and get info from Malfoy, but accidentally uses a cat hair in her portion and ended up in the hospital wing for a few weeks. In POA, Lupin tied himself to Pettigrew and Ron to escort Pettigrew up to the castle - forgetting that it was a full moon and he had not taken his potion - and Pettigrew ended up escaping. And so on and so forth.

Plans going wrong or being foiled in some way has nothing to do with power or independence, IMO. Things like that happened to all of them at some point or other - even Dumbledore's plans were not fool proof. Would you say that made him less powerful or less independent? :huh:

Yeah, but still... they all got a sweater and she didn't and it was clear what that sweater symbolizes. I'm with Harry on this one, as I've said before.

All Harry tells us that Fleur is not wearing one so we can't say for sure one way or the other. However, even if Molly didn't make her a sweater that year, I would still say they got her a Christmas present of some sort. Molly was under no obligation to make sweaters for everyone. Molly did not consider Fleur part of the family at that time and still had legitimate concerns about Fleur's feeling's for Bill. So I really don't see where that would be an issue. Molly and Fleur overcame their differences in the end and I think that's all that matters.

"Not, my daughter!" Translation: "you can definitely have the bushy haired one or the odd looking one." :lol:

Not my translation. Bellatrix didn't fire a killing curse at Hermione or Luna so that's not a fair assessment of the situation, IMO. She fired a killing curse at Ginny that just barely missed. That was the event that prompted Molly into action, but it wasn't just about Ginny - she told Bellatrix that she would never hurt any of "our children" again - I would say she was referring to all of the kids with "our" referring to all the parents that were fighting.

I meant when she returned with Voldemort.

At which point, everyone gathered outside when Voldemort called out that Harry was dead. The fighting began outside and moved into the castle. Bellatrix would not have had any opportunity to see someone grieving over Fred's body and saying his name then. It is more likely that she was nearby when Fred was killed and heard Percy screaming his name.

In order for Molly to "go the same way as Freddie", Bellatrix would have to blow up a wall in her face and I don't think she was intending to go through all that trouble. It might simply mean that Molly would die.

It was my impression that Fred was killed because he got hit by whatever curse was used to cause the explosion - there's no indication that he was impaled by debris, etc... However, if Bellatrix cast that curse, then casting a curse at Molly would be "the same way as Freddie" because she cast both curses, IMO.

The Weasleys never had any reason not be loyal to DD and fight for him. The Malfoys were betrayed by Voldemort and they realized they were in danger. That's why they left the fight. Just like Molly would have stopped fighting for someone who intended to hrut one of her sons.

I was addressing the point you made before that the Weasleys were not loyal to Dumbledore or fighting for him, but only doing it for Harry and Fred. I've said all along that the Weasleys were loyal to Dumbledore and fighting for the cause. And I do agree that - had Dumbledore personally threatened one of the Weasley children in the same manner that Voldemort had threatened Draco, the Weasleys would not have supported him. None of them would have because that would have made him the same as Voldemort, IMO.

However, as I said before, that was not the case with the Malfoys. They did not stop being loyal to Voldemort when he threatened Draco. Instead, they sought ways to regain favor with Voldemort and continued to do everything he asked with that goal in mind. They stopped fighting when it was clear that Voldemort was going to lose. I don't believe Narcissa would have done the same if it hadn't been a situation where she had witnessed Voldemort use the killing curse on Harry and fail. After all, the Death Eaters had been fighting inside the castle prior to that and Harry had seen Draco in the entrance hall before they went down to the Whomping Willow and saw Snape die. Where was Narcissa then?

It's not nice to interrupt. :p No but really, she says something about how it's an honour to have him in "our family's house so she was including them in some manner. I's not like she said; "I still love you, my lord even though my sister and her husband want you dead."

That's what stood out to me actually. She says "our family home", but it's not actually her home at all. It doesn't come across to me that she was including Narcissa and Lucius with that statement, but excluding them because she implies that it is just as much her home and that she is honored, but they are not. And I found her choice of saying "no higher pleasure" interesting as well because that has a more intimate connotation to it.

Also, I was looking through DH for something else and I noticed that, when Harry came back to his body after Voldemort "killed" him, he takes a chance to glance at them to see what happened and notes that Bellatrix is kneeling by Voldemort "like a lover".

Yes, she had. She was making plans about how they would all torture Ginny until Harry gives them the prophecy. Then she attempted to smash the prophecy and fought with Lucius when he stoped her. Then she gave orders about how they would torture Neville until Harry gives them the Prophecy.

On the contrary, she didn't question Lucius' orders there or tell him that he had no authority. She lost her temper when Harry started pointing out that Voldemort was a half-blood and Lucius stopped her - and she turned to Lucius for comfort in that - "he dares". She gives orders as well, but she also followed Lucius' orders and never mocked him or questioned him the way she did in DH after she became ashamed of Lucius, Narcissa, and Draco.

Saving Ginny and killing Bellatrix aren't the same thing.

She didn't actually save Ginny. Bellatrix missed Ginny with her curse. She was defending Ginny and all the other children from Bellatrix and fought Bellatrix to the death to do so. She wasn't seeking revenge.

And never pleasant, IMO.

And that would have been okay?

That would have been perfectly okay. The set up within the story allowed for many possibilities to occur. Once it was revealed that Harry had to die in order to destroy that piece of Voldemort's soul so Voldemort could be killed, all bets were off. Harry could have chosen not to return and left it to the others to complete with the added protection from his sacrifice. Dumbledore could have been wrong and Harry didn't get a choice, but his sacrifice protected everyone else anyway. Harry could have died at any point after that with someone else taking up the task afterward and killing Voldemort.

That was the ultimate irony of the series - Harry was never "the one" in the sense that it had to be him to kill Voldemort. He was "the one" in that he had to die so Voldemort could be killed. Anyone could have killed Voldemort once all the Horcruxes had been destroyed. That was "the power he knows not" - Harry being willing to die and let someone else take over to complete the task.

And she managed to offend both mothers and working women. :lol:

None that I know. I qualify has both - having been single and worked, a working mom, and a stay-at-home mom. Molly is one of my favorite characters and I don't see anything offensive about her. Nor does anyone else I know - whether they're single or married, have kids or not, work or not. They all love Molly as much as I do.

Molly's character might have offended some of the more radical feminists, but then, their views are so unrealistic and extreme, it's very difficult for me to take them seriously.

He does so right before Voldemort kills him. He looks at Bellatrix and thinks of Ginny.

He looks at Hagrid, Bellatrix, and then Ginny "inexplicably" popped into his head. Are you suggesting he was comparing Ginny to Hagrid as well? :lol:

A comparison would have been Harry thinking something like "Bellatrix gazed and Harry and her brown eyes reminded him of Ginny". Looking around and seeing Hagrid and Bellatrix and then Ginny popping into his head is not a comparison. That was Harry looking at the people surrounding him, accepting that he's going to die, and thinking of the girl he loves.

Ginny already had her eye on Harry. It still seems to me as though those relationships were highly superficial. It doubt they did anything else than snog and I think it was because Ginny never got over Harry.

Ginny didn't have her eye on Harry at that point. She was trying to move on because it did not appear that Harry would ever notice her at that point. She still had feelings for Harry, but I don't see why that would be a problem because it was realistic. You don't just get over someone with a snap of your fingers. She didn't let her feelings for Harry prevent her from trying to move on with her life.

I would agree that those relationships were superficial to some extent, but I would also say that is very realistic for that type of relationship because they serve as a learning experience for teenagers. Harry's relationship with Cho was also superficial and a learning experience for him. Ron's relationship with Lavender was very superficial, but it was significant for him to have that experience so he could learn from it. Same for Hermione with Krum and going on a date with McLaggen to try and make Ron jealous - those were learning experiences for her. However, there's no indication that all Ginny did with her previous boyfriends was snog. They never saw Ginny snogging Michael - but they did see them together after Hermione told them they were dating. They saw Ginny snogging Dean the one time - the rest of the time, they saw Ginny and Dean together just hanging out, talking, eating together, etc...

Basically, all of that is exactly what I would expect from teenagers at that stage in their lives - with the exception for the circumstances. Under normal circumstances - without constantly dealing with Harry's life being threatened, etc... - I would say that all of them would have dated a lot more often and had numerous superficial relationships before settling down with each other. That's normal behavior for teenagers, IMO.

She goes to the Room of Requirement when he tells her to. She names her kids after people he loved. She doesn't seem to have any objections to anything Harry does.

When did Ginny go to the Room of Requirement because Harry told her to? That didn't happen in DH - her parents told her to stay in the Room of Requirement and she did. Harry asked her to leave and then come back - she left, but did not come back. She took advantage of the opportunity to join the fight and didn't listen to Harry at all. And she showed that she was quite upset with Harry prior to that when he agreed with her parents that she should leave because she was underage.

The fact that Ginny understood what Harry needed to do and didn't cause a scene or make it more difficult for him is one of the reasons I have so much respect for her as a character. That was very mature for a 15-16 year old girl.

And naming their kids after people important to Harry doesn't demonstrate Ginny to be submissive because they're important to her too. And she had so many brothers, all of her family names had already been used - or would be. His parents gave him life and died to protect him - why would she object to him naming their children after them? She knew Sirius and cared about him enough to join Harry in the attempt to rescue him. Dumbledore was her headmaster as well and she supported him along with the others. And Luna was Ginny's friend before Harry even met her. So, really, the only name that might have been an issue would have been Snape's - but even there, I can see where Ginny would understand why Harry would want to do that. So I don't see that as submissive at all.

The readers also only see them as mothers and that's what counts. What we see is what we're going to remember when analyzing a character. Otherwise, it's just like saying that Bellatrix is a really nice person but Harry only sees her when she's being nasty. JKR shows us what she wants us to see, what she deems as being important. Narcissa's and Molly's mothering roles are what is important about them.

The difference is that it was possible for Jo to show Bellatrix being nice as well as being nasty. She could have had Bellatrix have some sympathy for the children in OOTP rather than portraying her as a criminally insane woman who took pleasure in the idea of torturing kids for example. There was opportunity for Harry to see more than one side of Bellatrix if there had been anything nice about her. There wasn't so he didn't.

That's not the case with Molly and Narcissa. Harry would not be at the Burrow whenever the other kids weren't around - and even if he was, Molly considered him one of her children so she still would have been motherly around him. Harry could not be present when Molly spent time with her friends when the kids were not around. He could not be there to see what she did during her time alone while the kids were at school and Arthur was at work. Likewise, he wasn't going to see Narcissa in such situations either.

In choosing to write the story from Harry's perspective, Jo limited what she could show with the other characters because most of it had to be done through Harry's observations. The reader has to work around those limitations through what Harry is told and pay attention to what is being said around him. Molly is a member of the Order - a duty she takes on outside of being a mother. She was not a mother when she went on missions with the Order. Harry doesn't see that, but it can be inferred from what Harry learns. Molly was not a mother when she was having tea with Tonks in HBP - she was a friend and confidant. Harry doesn't get to see all of that because it was a private moment between Molly and Tonks, but the reader can infer that from Tonks being there and thanking Molly for the tea and sympathy as she leaves. So Jo did find ways to work around that limitation and show that there was more to Molly than just being a wife and mother, IMO.

MasterOfDeath

June 19th, 2009, 1:56 pm

About Ginny dancing to avoid a killing curse in HBP, remember she was high on Felix at the time. ;)

Trixa

June 19th, 2009, 4:19 pm

I think there's a difference between dueling in a competition for points and attacking people with the goal of torturing and/or killing them.
Yeah, but it's still a sport, no matter what she uses it for.

An 11-year-old who was also part veela and had a crush on Harry.
Yet she was an eleven year old. Harry knows that she is a Veela and he knows what Veelas do, so I think that if he found hismelf suddenly attracted to Gabrielle he would know why. Besides, it's not the only example of Ginny displaying uncalled for jealousy. She also fears Harry would make out with Cho while Voldemort is attacking the school. That's how little she knows him and trusts him.

Things like that happened to all of them at some point or other - even Dumbledore's plans were not fool proof. Would you say that made him less powerful or less independent?
Dumbledore succeeded most of time. Ginny failed most of the time. We have been told to expect great things from her in book seven and that she was very powerful. I didn't see any evidence of either.

All Harry tells us that Fleur is not wearing one so we can't say for sure one way or the other. However, even if Molly didn't make her a sweater that year, I would still say they got her a Christmas present of some sort. Molly was under no obligation to make sweaters for everyone. Molly did not consider Fleur part of the family at that time and still had legitimate concerns about Fleur's feeling's for Bill. So I really don't see where that would be an issue.
It says something about Molly's behaviour. This is actually something which all Weasleys are guilty of: not being nice or even cordial towards people they don't like. I'm sure Molly intended to make Fleur feel bad by not giving her a sweater just like she wanted to make Hermione feel bad by giving her a little egg for Easter.

She fired a killing curse at Ginny that just barely missed. That was the event that prompted Molly into action, but it wasn't just about Ginny - she told Bellatrix that she would never hurt any of "our children" again - I would say she was referring to all of the kids with "our" referring to all the parents that were fighting.

I don't think Molly cares about other children except maybe about Harry. Do we ever see her defending anyone other than her own children?

However, as I said before, that was not the case with the Malfoys. They did not stop being loyal to Voldemort when he threatened Draco. Instead, they sought ways to regain favor with Voldemort and continued to do everything he asked with that goal in mind. They stopped fighting when it was clear that Voldemort was going to lose. I don't believe Narcissa would have done the same if it hadn't been a situation where she had witnessed Voldemort use the killing curse on Harry and fail.
The Malfoys have taken risks by fighting for the cause in the past and I don't see why they wouldn't do so again. The only problem they had was that Voldemort was posing a threat to their son, more so now then he had done before. They tried to get into Voldemort's good graces again and failed. That's when they realized Voldemort's reign would not be in their and their son's best interests.

That's what stood out to me actually. She says "our family home", but it's not actually her home at all. It doesn't come across to me that she was including Narcissa and Lucius with that statement, but excluding them because she implies that it is just as much her home and that she is honored, but they are not.
So, she's not only not including them in her statement but she also takes their house? I still don't see how she is excluding them.

She gives orders as well, but she also followed Lucius' orders and never mocked him or questioned him the way she did in DH after she became ashamed of Lucius, Narcissa, and Draco
She wasn't ashamed of them but it was a situation they did not understand. They didn't know about the sword so they had no idea they were in danger. Bellatrix gets annoyed with them when they are refusing to accept the situation and obey her.

Also, I was looking through DH for something else and I noticed that, when Harry came back to his body after Voldemort "killed" him, he takes a chance to glance at them to see what happened and notes that Bellatrix is kneeling by Voldemort "like a lover".
Yes, she had feelings for him. This is another thing that Ginny and Bellatrix have in common. They are both in love with an ideal, not with a person. Ginny has been in love with Harry even before she met him so she has no idea what he is like as a person and Bellatrix doesn't even know Voldemort's real name. She is in love with what he represents just like Ginny is in love with a hero, not with Harry Potter.

She didn't actually save Ginny. Bellatrix missed Ginny with her curse. She was defending Ginny and all the other children from Bellatrix and fought Bellatrix to the death to do so. She wasn't seeking revenge.
A Stunning Curse would have been enough for her to protect whomever it was she wanted to protect. The fact that she was fighting to kill indicates that she was personally offended by what Bellatrix had done and wanted revenge.

That would have been perfectly okay.
I think most HP fans would have been unhappy with a Voldemort killed by Lee Jordan.

None that I know. I qualify has both - having been single and worked, a working mom, and a stay-at-home mom. Molly is one of my favorite characters and I don't see anything offensive about her. Nor does anyone else I know - whether they're single or married, have kids or not, work or not. They all love Molly as much as I do.

Molly's character might have offended some of the more radical feminists, but then, their views are so unrealistic and extreme, it's very difficult for me to take them seriously.

I was talking about the duel not about Molly's character. The duel’s message is, I feel, a disturbing one for both housewives and working women. JKR said that she wanted to show that Molly is powerful even though she is a housewife. But Molly didn’t have to prove anything since her role in the series is okay the way it is. Molly didn’t have to show that she was powerful and that she could’ve done something different than being a mother and a wife because there’s nothing wrong with being a mother and a wife.
Bellatrix’s attitude towards children is hardly her biggest character flaw yet it is this one that the duel emphasizes. It’s not her evilness or her bigotry, it’s the fact that she doesn’t have chidlren and that she isn’t maternal. It’s like you said “the mother vs anti-mother”. Only, what’s wrong with being childless? What’s wrong with not wanting children or liking children? What does the duel say to women who have chosen to dedicate their lives to something other than having a family?

He looks at Hagrid, Bellatrix, and then Ginny "inexplicably" popped into his head. Are you suggesting he was comparing Ginny to Hagrid as well?
He thinks of Ginny after he sees Bellatrix, not after he sees Hagrid. I realize the comparison isn't intentional but it may indicate a paralell between the two characters.

When did Ginny go to the Room of Requirement because Harry told her to? That didn't happen in DH - her parents told her to stay in the Room of Requirement and she did. Harry asked her to leave and then come back - she left, but did not come back. She took advantage of the opportunity to join the fight and didn't listen to Harry at all. And she showed that she was quite upset with Harry prior to that when he agreed with her parents that she should leave because she was underage.

The fact that Ginny understood what Harry needed to do and didn't cause a scene or make it more difficult for him is one of the reasons I have so much respect for her as a character. That was very mature for a 15-16 year old girl.

And naming their kids after people important to Harry doesn't demonstrate Ginny to be submissive because they're important to her too. And she had so many brothers, all of her family names had already been used - or would be. His parents gave him life and died to protect him - why would she object to him naming their children after them? She knew Sirius and cared about him enough to join Harry in the attempt to rescue him. Dumbledore was her headmaster as well and she supported him along with the others. And Luna was Ginny's friend before Harry even met her. So, really, the only name that might have been an issue would have been Snape's - but even there, I can see where Ginny would understand why Harry would want to do that. So I don't see that as submissive at all.
Ginny is a very convenient girlfriend for Harry to have. She doesn't seem to have any demands on him, they never argue about anything and she always understands him and never gets in his way. Sound nice but it is very unrealistic. Ginny lost a brother at the battle of Hogwarts yet she names her chidlren after Harry's mentor, Harry's parents, Harry's godafther and after a guy who was in love with Harry's mother. "Luna" was not in the book, if I'm not mistaken. After the battle of Hogwarts Harry sees Ginny crying in her mother's arms and walks right past because he can't handle female emotions.
That was just awful, IMO, and it speaks volumes about his attitude towards her.

The difference is that it was possible for Jo to show Bellatrix being nice as well as being nasty. She could have had Bellatrix have some sympathy for the children in OOTP rather than portraying her as a criminally insane woman who took pleasure in the idea of torturing kids for example.
She could have shown Molly leaving the kids with Arthur and going shopping by herself also.
The fact that Tonks asks her advice only says that Tonks respects her. It doesn't say that Molly and Tonks are friends or that Molly has plans with Tonks in which her family isn't included.

In choosing to write the story from Harry's perspective, Jo limited what she could show with the other characters because most of it had to be done through Harry's observations.
That's too bad, but it was her choice. The readers are going to judge the characters by what they see them doing not by speculating about what they do when Harry isn't there. The readers see a mother when they read about Molly and Narcissa. Their loyalty to a cause is peripheral to their loyalty to their families.

The reader has to work around those limitations through what Harry is told and pay attention to what is being said around him.
Yes, and like I said it would have been fairly easy to show Molly in a different role sometimes. Just like it would have been easy to foreshadow her duelling abilities by simply having one of the kids mention how mom was in a duelling club at school. For example.

meesha1971

June 20th, 2009, 12:17 am

Yeah, but it's still a sport, no matter what she uses it for.

I don't see Bellatrix participating in duelling as a sport - to kill someone, sure, but not as a sport. :lol:

Yet she was an eleven year old. Harry knows that she is a Veela and he knows what Veelas do, so I think that if he found hismelf suddenly attracted to Gabrielle he would know why. Besides, it's not the only example of Ginny displaying uncalled for jealousy. She also fears Harry would make out with Cho while Voldemort is attacking the school. That's how little she knows him and trusts him.

Yes, Harry would know why - and so would everyone else. However, that would still be a very unpleasant situation for all of them. The emphasis on the negative aspects of the veela powers was significant to this, IMO. Gabrielle being 11 doesn't really change that - she was old enough to have a crush on a boy and we'd already seen Fleur use her powers in a negative way in GOF.

As for Cho, I found that to be completely understandable. It's not an issue of trusting Harry - it was the circumstances. Cho is Harry's ex-girlfriend and Ginny and Harry had been separated for about a year at that point. She's still a teenage girl and I think insecurity under those circumstances is understandable. I don't see any reason to condemn Ginny for being normal.

Dumbledore succeeded most of time. Ginny failed most of the time. We have been told to expect great things from her in book seven and that she was very powerful. I didn't see any evidence of either.

Well, let's examine that - Dumbledore sets up an elaborate protection for the Sorcerer's Stone with several obstacles - all of which were overcome by three first year students. He was never able to find the Chamber of Secrets in spite of the fact that he could understand Parseltongue - he never appeared to hear the snake the way Harry did. Sirius Black manages to get inside Hogwarts twice without Dumbledore being able to figure out how or catch him. Crouch Jr. slips in under his nose in the guise of Moody and manages to put Harry's name into the Goblet as well as turn the Triwizard Cup into a portkey to ship Harry out of Hogwarts right under Dumbledore's nose. His plans to keep Harry and Sirius safe in OOTP failed with Harry being lured to the DoM due to Dumbledore not telling him anything and Sirius going to rescue him and getting murdered. His plan regarding the Elder wand failed completely because Draco managed to disarm him.

Honestly, I would have to say that Dumbledore's failures outweighed his successes overall. Then again, I would also say that's normal because you can't always account for every single contingency. Ginny doesn't stand out in that regard because everyone has failures occasionally. And I believe she did show herself to be a very capable witch in DH - she handled herself very well in the battle.

It says something about Molly's behaviour. This is actually something which all Weasleys are guilty of: not being nice or even cordial towards people they don't like. I'm sure Molly intended to make Fleur feel bad by not giving her a sweater just like she wanted to make Hermione feel bad by giving her a little egg for Easter.

I think that's a gross exaggeration. The Weasleys responded to people based on how they acted - just like everyone else in the world does, IMO. Fleur wasn't exactly nice or cordial to them either with her insults to their home, their school, how they lived, etc...

Molly's not a saint and I never expected her to be. I think she would be pretty boring as a character if she was. The fact that she didn't consider Fleur part of the family at that point and had legitimate concerns regarding her relationship with Bill is significant to her reactions and behavior concerning Fleur. All of that was very realistic - particularly with the oldest child and the first wedding. I remember mine - my parents did the same and my dad looked at me right as we were getting ready to head down the aisle and told me I didn't have to go through with it because he didn't want me to. It took a while, but now they're crazy about my husband. Like I said before, what matters is that the two of them were able to overcome their differences in the end and establish a good relationship between them.

I don't think Molly cares about other children except maybe about Harry. Do we ever see her defending anyone other than her own children?

Yes - when she duels Bellatrix in DH.

The Malfoys have taken risks by fighting for the cause in the past and I don't see why they wouldn't do so again. The only problem they had was that Voldemort was posing a threat to their son, more so now then he had done before. They tried to get into Voldemort's good graces again and failed. That's when they realized Voldemort's reign would not be in their and their son's best interests.

But not until Narcissa realized that Voldemort was going to lose. Narcissa could have searched for Draco in the castle while the fighting was going on before - why didn't she? Most likely because she was too busy trying to impress Voldemort and regain her family's status with him - until she realized that he was going to lose. Narcissa always believed in the cause - even after she gave up on Voldemort finally - and she put that cause ahead of her family. So did Lucius. They abandoned Voldemort once they realized the battle was lost, but not their cause, IMO.

So, she's not only not including them in her statement but she also takes their house? I still don't see how she is excluding them.

She's excluding them by implying that she is honored to have Voldemort there and they are not.

She wasn't ashamed of them but it was a situation they did not understand. They didn't know about the sword so they had no idea they were in danger. Bellatrix gets annoyed with them when they are refusing to accept the situation and obey her.

I was referring to her behavior before she saw the sword actually - where she laughed at Lucius and mocked him - telling him that he had no authority in his own home and was going to summon Voldemort herself. She treats all three of them like something she scraped off the bottom of her shoe because she is ashamed of them, IMO.

Yes, she had feelings for him. This is another thing that Ginny and Bellatrix have in common. They are both in love with an ideal, not with a person. Ginny has been in love with Harry even before she met him so she has no idea what he is like as a person and Bellatrix doesn't even know Voldemort's real name. She is in love with what he represents just like Ginny is in love with a hero, not with Harry Potter.

Well, we got the Bellatrix is in love with Voldemort issue settled at least. :tu:

As for Ginny, that's not what was shown in the text, IMO. Ginny was not in love with Harry when she was 11 years old. She had a celebrity crush on "The Boy Who Lived" - an icon that she had never met and did not know at that point. She starts to get to know him in COS and she realizes that he does not like being famous - as we see when she stands up to Draco in the book shop. But he is still a celebrity and that is amplified by him saving her at the end of COS. She's very awkward and shy around him because of that. By GOF, I would say that she had gotten over the celebrity crush. She had gotten to know more about Harry as a person and she actually starts talking more around him there. By OOTP, he's just Harry - her brother's best friend who happens to be famous. She still has feelings for him, but they are for who he is - not his fame. Still, she acknowledges that he might not ever return them so she tries to move on and date other people. But Harry has gotten to know her during all that as well and realizes in HBP that he has feelings for her - I thought that was a nice twist with him pining for Ginny - and they get together around the end of that year. Ginny demonstrates between OOTP and HBP that she understands Harry very well - I'd say the only person who might understand him better would be Ron to be honest. So I would say that Ginny was definitely in love with Harry for who he was - not his fame.

A Stunning Curse would have been enough for her to protect whomever it was she wanted to protect. The fact that she was fighting to kill indicates that she was personally offended by what Bellatrix had done and wanted revenge.

So she stuns Bellatrix and then moves on to another fight. Bellatrix recovers - or one of the other Death Eaters revives her - and goes on to kill more children. Doesn't sound so hot to me.

She was fighting to kill because she wanted to stop Bellatrix from hurting or killing any of the other children, IMO. Stunning her wouldn't have sufficed because Bellatrix just would have went on to kill more children in that event.

I think most HP fans would have been unhappy with a Voldemort killed by Lee Jordan.

A good author write the story they want to write - not the story the fans think they should write. It's not feasible for any author to please every single fan - people are too different and want too many different things.

In literary terms, the construct of the story allowed for that to happen. Some fans might not have liked it - some would because they had already predicted something like that would happen. There were a lot of people who actually did want Harry to die and were disappointed that he didn't. But, when it came down to it, it was Jo's decision to make which option to use because it is her story. The construct of the story allowed for a lot of alternative scenarios to occur - and not all of them involved Harry.

I was talking about the duel not about Molly's character. The duel’s message is, I feel, a disturbing one for both housewives and working women. JKR said that she wanted to show that Molly is powerful even though she is a housewife. But Molly didn’t have to prove anything since her role in the series is okay the way it is. Molly didn’t have to show that she was powerful and that she could’ve done something different than being a mother and a wife because there’s nothing wrong with being a mother and a wife.
Bellatrix’s attitude towards children is hardly her biggest character flaw yet it is this one that the duel emphasizes. It’s not her evilness or her bigotry, it’s the fact that she doesn’t have chidlren and that she isn’t maternal. It’s like you said “the mother vs anti-mother”. Only, what’s wrong with being childless? What’s wrong with not wanting children or liking children? What does the duel say to women who have chosen to dedicate their lives to something other than having a family?

Well, that would depend - are those women criminally insane? Do they go around torturing and killing children?

That's the difference with Bellatrix. It was not about women who choose not to have kids or just don't like kids. Bellatrix was the "anti-mother" because of that kind of behavior - the fact that she wasn't maternal was the least of it. I could see where women who are criminally insane like Bellatrix would be offended - not that I would care because hopefully women like that are also locked up where they can't get to my kids - but I don't see why a mentally stable woman who chose not to have kids for whatever reason would be offended by that.

Like I said, I don't know anybody who was offended by Molly's character - and I include the duel in that. Whether they were single or married, had kids or not, had a job or not - they all loved Molly and her duel with Bellatrix was one of their favorite scenes.

He thinks of Ginny after he sees Bellatrix, not after he sees Hagrid. I realize the comparison isn't intentional but it may indicate a paralell between the two characters.

Ginny pops into his mind after he sees Hagrid and Bellatrix. If that's a comparison to Bellatrix, then it would also be a comparison to Hagrid. But it's not a comparison because there are no identifiers between Bellatrix and Ginny - i.e. Bellatrix's eyes reminding him of Ginny's eye. There's no parallel between the characters because they are polar opposites. Ginny popped into his mind because he was about to die and he was in love with her - as far as he knew, he would never see her again. It didn't have anything to do with Bellatrix.

Ginny is a very convenient girlfriend for Harry to have. She doesn't seem to have any demands on him, they never argue about anything and she always understands him and never gets in his way. Sound nice but it is very unrealistic. Ginny lost a brother at the battle of Hogwarts yet she names her chidlren after Harry's mentor, Harry's parents, Harry's godafther and after a guy who was in love with Harry's mother. "Luna" was not in the book, if I'm not mistaken. After the battle of Hogwarts Harry sees Ginny crying in her mother's arms and walks right past because he can't handle female emotions.
That was just awful, IMO, and it speaks volumes about his attitude towards her.

What demands is Ginny supposed to make? Is she supposed to scream and throw a tantrum because he's fighting a war? Was she supposed to beg him to let Voldemort take over and go into hiding with her instead of fighting? Was she supposed to rant and rave and accuse him of being selfish for leaving? How on earth would that make Ginny a better person? :huh:

They were facing extreme circumstances. I think having Ginny make demands like that on Harry when she knew what he was fighting for and why would have been a much more negative portrayal of her character. I see that as a sign of maturity from Ginny. There really wasn't anything for Harry and Ginny to argue about at that early stage in their relationship other than what he had to do in fighting Voldemort - and arguing over that would have made Ginny look petty and small, IMO.

And, to be quite honest, I don't think demands should be part of any relationship - that's a very unhealthy attitude, IMO. I think any relationship like that would most likely fail. Healthy relationships are about compromise and understanding each other - and, yeah, sometimes arguing to reach that compromise and understanding. But not demands.

George named his son Fred - and I think the majority of people expected George to be the one to do that because they were twins and that is a very special bond. And I'd say it would have been very confusing during the family get togethers if Ginny had named one of her kids Fred too. :lol:

The kids names are James Sirus, Albus Severus, and Lily Luna. They were named after people who were important to both Ginny and Harry. Though I do agree that Albus Severus is rather squicky - but that has nothing to do with Harry or Ginny. :lol:

I don't see how Harry showing Molly and Ginny respect and giving them time together to grieve is awful. :huh: I thought that was a very nice moment and it showed his maturity and how unselfish he was. He realized that he didn't have to interrupt them because he had survived - he had all the time in the world to spend with Ginny.

They had their "reunion" later - and I have no doubt that Ginny gave Harry a good whallop for not taking her side when her parents insisted she leave and for making them all think he was dead - right before she snogged him senseless. :lol:

She could have shown Molly leaving the kids with Arthur and going shopping by herself also.
The fact that Tonks asks her advice only says that Tonks respects her. It doesn't say that Molly and Tonks are friends or that Molly has plans with Tonks in which her family isn't included.

So Molly has all that time to herself 9/10 months out of the year where she can visit friends, go shopping, etc... - but she should wait until all of the kids are home to dump them on her husband to do things like that instead just so Harry could witness it? :huh:

Tonks felt comfortable enough to go to Molly's home in the middle of the night - it was 1:00 AM - for "tea and sympathy". That's not the kind of thing you do just because you respect someone, IMO. That's the type of thing friends do.

That's too bad, but it was her choice. The readers are going to judge the characters by what they see them doing not by speculating about what they do when Harry isn't there. The readers see a mother when they read about Molly and Narcissa. Their loyalty to a cause is peripheral to their loyalty to their families.

Then I would have to say that the lack of understanding would be the reader's fault for not paying attention. The information is given in the text and you can't just skim through when you read a story, IMO. That would barely be scratching the surface because you have to be capable of reading between the lines to fully understand any story, IMO.

There's a lot more to Molly than her being a mother and all of that was shown in the text from her choosing to join the order to make the wizarding world a better place to having friends. Jo can't be blamed because some readers chose not to pay attention, IMO.

Yes, and like I said it would have been fairly easy to show Molly in a different role sometimes. Just like it would have been easy to foreshadow her duelling abilities by simply having one of the kids mention how mom was in a duelling club at school. For example.

Molly was shown in different roles - wife, mother, active member of the order, friend, etc... The fact that Molly was in the Order and an active member was enough to foreshadow her ability to fight, IMO.

Trixa

June 20th, 2009, 10:01 am

As for Cho, I found that to be completely understandable. It's not an issue of trusting Harry - it was the circumstances. Cho is Harry's ex-girlfriend and Ginny and Harry had been separated for about a year at that point. She's still a teenage girl and I think insecurity under those circumstances is understandable
Under those circumstances it should be the least of her problems. Voldemort was attacking the school and threatening the life of them all. Ginny worries about her boyfriend snogging another girl. And it does have to do with trusting Harry. She should've known he wouldn't do such a thing although considering how he treats her I'm not surprised she was jealous.

I think that's a gross exaggeration. The Weasleys responded to people based on how they acted - just like everyone else in the world does, IMO. Fleur wasn't exactly nice or cordial to them either with her insults to their home, their school, how they lived, etc...
So why not confront her on that one? Why didn't Molly tell her to stop her insulting behaviour and treat her with respect in her own home? Is being passive aggressive better?

Yes - when she duels Bellatrix in DH.
It's all about Ginny then.

Narcissa could have searched for Draco in the castle while the fighting was going on before - why didn't she?
Maybe he didn't let her. Lucius tried to go and find him and he wasn't allowed to.

She's excluding them by implying that she is honored to have Voldemort there and they are not.
She wasn't implying that at all. Bellatrix never implies actually. She always says exactly what she wants to say. If she wanted to say that she is honoured and not that it's an honour for all of them she would have said so.

Well, we got the Bellatrix is in love with Voldemort issue settled at least.
What do you mean? I've never denied that.

As for Ginny, that's not what was shown in the text, IMO. Ginny was not in love with Harry when she was 11 years old. She had a celebrity crush on "The Boy Who Lived" - an icon that she had never met and did not know at that point. She starts to get to know him in COS and she realizes that he does not like being famous - as we see when she stands up to Draco in the book shop. But he is still a celebrity and that is amplified by him saving her at the end of COS. She's very awkward and shy around him because of that. By GOF, I would say that she had gotten over the celebrity crush. She had gotten to know more about Harry as a person and she actually starts talking more around him there. By OOTP, he's just Harry - her brother's best friend who happens to be famous. She still has feelings for him, but they are for who he is - not his fame. Still, she acknowledges that he might not ever return them so she tries to move on and date other people. But Harry has gotten to know her during all that as well and realizes in HBP that he has feelings for her - I thought that was a nice twist with him pining for Ginny - and they get together around the end of that year. Ginny demonstrates between OOTP and HBP that she understands Harry very well - I'd say the only person who might understand him better would be Ron to be honest. So I would say that Ginny was definitely in love with Harry for who he was - not his fame.
We have no reason to believe that their relationship has developed. At the end of HBP Ginny tells Harry she loves him for being such a hero. It doesn't seem as though she got passed that.

So she stuns Bellatrix and then moves on to another fight. Bellatrix recovers - or one of the other Death Eaters revives her - and goes on to kill more children. Doesn't sound so hot to me.

Only Bellatrix and Voldemort were still fighting so she wouldn't have any other fights to engage in or anyone to revive her from the stunning spell except Voldemort who was busy fighting McG, Kingsley and Slughorn.

A good author write the story they want to write - not the story the fans think they should write. It's not feasible for any author to please every single fan - people are too different and want too many different things.
Of course, but her having Voldemort killed by Lee Jordan or some other random character would have made a poor ending to the book series. People have as much invested in the villain of the story as they have in the hero. Most people want a believable and exciting death scene for a character they loathed.

That's the difference with Bellatrix. It was not about women who choose not to have kids or just don't like kids. Bellatrix was the "anti-mother" because of that kind of behavior - the fact that she wasn't maternal was the least of it. I could see where women who are criminally insane like Bellatrix would be offended - not that I would care because hopefully women like that are also locked up where they can't get to my kids - but I don't see why a mentally stable woman who chose not to have kids for whatever reason would be offended by that.

Her evilness doesn't matter or matters very little since the duel emphasizes her attitude towards children, by contrasting her to Molly. If she had been killed by any other character then yes, she would have died for being a bigot and an evil person. I don't see why it was necessary to have Molly kill Bellatrix and create that contrast between them. What do you think the message was? (This really is a question, I hope the internet doesn't make it sound snippy).

comparison because there are no identifiers between Bellatrix and Ginny - i.e. Bellatrix's eyes reminding him of Ginny's eye. There's no parallel between the characters because they are polar opposites.
Why are they polar opposites? Besides the fact that one is good and the other is evil of course, but then you could say Bellatrix is the polar opposite of all women on the good side. I wouldn't want to offend Bellatrix by comparing her to Ginny but they do have some things in common.

What demands is Ginny supposed to make? Is she supposed to scream and throw a tantrum because he's fighting a war? Was she supposed to beg him to let Voldemort take over and go into hiding with her instead of fighting? Was she supposed to rant and rave and accuse him of being selfish for leaving?
No, but what about something like: "Are you going to be in great danger? Will you be taking anyone with you? Is this something between you and Dumbledore?" I don't know, she should have shown some interest.

And, to be quite honest, I don't think demands should be part of any relationship - that's a very unhealthy attitude, IMO.
It's better then being a yesman or woman in a relationship.

I don't see how Harry showing Molly and Ginny respect and giving them time together to grieve is awful. I thought that was a very nice moment and it showed his maturity and how unselfish he was.
It would have been selfish for Harry to comfort the love of his life after her brother had just died? Why?

So Molly has all that time to herself 9/10 months out of the year where she can visit friends, go shopping, etc... - but she should wait until all of the kids are home to dump them on her husband to do things like that instead just so Harry could witness it?
Why not? When the kids are at school Molly probably waits on Arthur (and I don't mean that in a bad way). I doubt she has a raving social life when the kids are gone.

Tonks felt comfortable enough to go to Molly's home in the middle of the night - it was 1:00 AM - for "tea and sympathy". That's not the kind of thing you do just because you respect someone, IMO. That's the type of thing friends do.
Yes, that was very nice of Molly.

There's a lot more to Molly than her being a mother and all of that was shown in the text from her choosing to join the order to make the wizarding world a better place to having friends.
Molly joined the Order to make the WW a better place for her kids. I don't see how that shows that there is a lot more to her than being a mother.

Molly was shown in different roles - wife, mother, active member of the order, friend, etc... The fact that Molly was in the Order and an active member was enough to foreshadow her ability to fight, IMO.
She had never fought before so we didn't see her ability to fight. As for her being an active member...well, I won't repeat myself. :lol:

Like I said, I don't know anybody who was offended by Molly's character - and I include the duel in that. Whether they were single or married, had kids or not, had a job or not - they all loved Molly and her duel with Bellatrix was one of their favorite scenes.
There was only one good thing about that scene: Voldemort's reaction to Bellatrix's death. How romantic!:love: That made up for everything.

meesha1971

June 20th, 2009, 1:30 pm

Under those circumstances it should be the least of her problems. Voldemort was attacking the school and threatening the life of them all. Ginny worries about her boyfriend snogging another girl. And it does have to do with trusting Harry. She should've known he wouldn't do such a thing although considering how he treats her I'm not surprised she was jealous.

Actually, that was well before Voldemort was on his way. At that point, Neville had assumed that Harry had come back to help them overthrow Snape and notified everyone in the DA with the coins to that effect - Harry's back, we're fighting against Snape. It wasn't until after Harry got to Ravenclaw tower and Alecto pressed her Dark Mark that Voldemort became an issue. The trio knew that he would get around to Hogwarts eventually because Harry saw him decide to check on his Horcruxes, but none of the others did.

I never saw the issue as being whether Ginny trusted Harry. It came across to me that she didn't trust Cho and I found that understandable. Having been in a similar situation with my husband's ex-wife, I was able to identify with that. Ginny's reaction made sense to me because of the circumstances and the fact that she's still a teenager. I don't expect teenagers to always be rational.

So why not confront her on that one? Why didn't Molly tell her to stop her insulting behaviour and treat her with respect in her own home? Is being passive aggressive better?

I think every situation would be different actually. Sometimes it's best to confront the person - other's it's best to wait and see. Molly did allow Fleur to stay in her home and she did try to be polite to her in spite of how rude Fleur was being. She was worried because she didn't believe Fleur's feelings were genuine, but she also has to consider Bill in all of that.

They got off to a rocky start, but like I said before, all that really matters is that the two of them were able to overcome their differences and build a good relationship between them. Jo set up a clear conflict between the two with both behaving negatively towards each other and then had them come to an understanding. I liked how it all played out myself - it was a lesson for both of them.

It's all about Ginny then.

No - as Molly said to Bellatrix herself. It was about the children.

Maybe he didn't let her. Lucius tried to go and find him and he wasn't allowed to.

There's nothing to indicate that. Voldemort was in the Shrieking Shack and had summoned Lucius - and then sent him to fetch Snape. Narcissa wasn't anywhere to be seen when Harry had that vision - she was out fighting with the other Death Eaters as far as we're shown. Lucius was under obligation to go to Voldemort when summoned, but Narcissa was not an official Death Eater - she was never given the mark. So if it had been all that important to her, she could have joined the Death Eaters who invaded the castle during the first round of fighting and looked for Draco then.

She wasn't implying that at all. Bellatrix never implies actually. She always says exactly what she wants to say. If she wanted to say that she is honoured and not that it's an honour for all of them she would have said so.

She did say that she was honored - and left Narcissa and Lucius out of that completely.

What do you mean? I've never denied that.

That was the impression I got from this post - #24 on page 2.

Hm. Well, to be honest I don't see too much evidence to believe that she loved Voldy. She was attracted to him and that's it, IMO. She never makes any sacrifices for him. And he is right to be skeptical when it comes to her so called affection. Voldemort has always been surrounded by people who used him to get what they wanted so his guard is up. Also, since Voldemort is pretty good at reading people, I think he knew that she had feelings for him or that she at least thought she did.

We have no reason to believe that their relationship has developed. At the end of HBP Ginny tells Harry she loves him for being such a hero. It doesn't seem as though she got passed that.

I don't recall Ginny ever saying that the only reason she loved Harry was because he was a hero. :huh:

She said that she understood that he wouldn't be happy unless he was hunting Voldemort and maybe that's why she liked him so much. That wasn't about Harry's fame or him being viewed as a hero, IMO. That was about who Harry was - his determination to see that through to the end and finish what Voldemort started. That goes into why people view him as a hero, but it's also who he really is.

As for their relationship, the information is there to show the development of it, IMO. That's where I got all that stuff I posted previously actually - from the text.

Only Bellatrix and Voldemort were still fighting so she wouldn't have any other fights to engage in or anyone to revive her from the stunning spell except Voldemort who was busy fighting McG, Kingsley and Slughorn.

Actually, there were fights going on all around them. Harry notes a lot of them as he makes his way through the fighting. In the midst of all that fighting, Voldemort was fighting three opponents and Bellatrix was fighting three opponents. I think there was a pause in the fighting when Molly and Bellatrix started dueling, but I don't have my book on hand to check just now to be sure. However, if I am remembering that correctly, that would have only been a pause. Harry stopped the fighting all together when he revealed himself to put a shield charm around Molly - but that was after Bellatrix was dead.

If Molly had only stunned Bellatrix, none of that would have happened. She would have gone one to another fight and it is most likely that Bellatrix would have been revived - possibly by Voldemort himself. The fighting would have continued with Harry trying to make his way to Voldemort and Bellatrix trying to kill more children.

Of course, but her having Voldemort killed by Lee Jordan or some other random character would have made a poor ending to the book series. People have as much invested in the villain of the story as they have in the hero. Most people want a believable and exciting death scene for a character they loathed.

Within the construct of the story that would have been believable and exciting regardless of who Jo chose to defeat Voldemort in the event that Harry died - or chose to stay dead. That was the irony of Harry being a Horcrux. The prophecy never meant that Harry had to be the one to defeat Voldemort. It meant that Harry had to die so Voldemort could be defeated. The construct of the story is that anyone could have killed Voldemort once the Horcruxes were destroyed.

Of course, while Jo could have chosen any character for that - including Lee Jordon, I think it would most likely have ended up being Neville if Jo had chosen to take that option instead of having Harry choose to live.

Her evilness doesn't matter or matters very little since the duel emphasizes her attitude towards children, by contrasting her to Molly. If she had been killed by any other character then yes, she would have died for being a bigot and an evil person. I don't see why it was necessary to have Molly kill Bellatrix and create that contrast between them. What do you think the message was? (This really is a question, I hope the internet doesn't make it sound snippy).

No worries - I'm enjoying the discussion immensely. :)

For me the significance was that Bellatrix's attitude towards children was that she was willing - and enjoyed - torturing and killing those who were muggles or muggleborn - or blood traitors. And she felt it would be an honor for a child to be sacrificed in Voldemort's name regardless of their blood status. That's what made Bellatrix the "anti-mother" - she enjoyed torturing and killing children.

I don't think the term "anti-mother" would accurately apply to a woman who simply chose not to have children or didn't like children because that wouldn't translate into them enjoying torturing and killing children as well.

Why are they polar opposites? Besides the fact that one is good and the other is evil of course, but then you could say Bellatrix is the polar opposite of all women on the good side. I wouldn't want to offend Bellatrix by comparing her to Ginny but they do have some things in common.

Because I don't see where they have anything in common at all. Belltrix is criminally insane - Ginny is mentally stable. Bellatrix enjoys torturing and killing people - Ginny does not. Bellatrix believes that muggleborns should be expunged from the wizarding world completely - Ginny does not. Bellatrix has an obsessive personality with no interests outside of her quest to cleanse the wizarding world and be close to Voldemort - Ginny has an argumentative personality and has a lot of varying interests like Quidditch, playing chess, animals, etc...

No, but what about something like: "Are you going to be in great danger? Will you be taking anyone with you? Is this something between you and Dumbledore?" I don't know, she should have shown some interest.

Ginny already knew the answers to those questions. It didn't take a genius to figure out that Ron and Hermione would go with Harry - even if he didn't actually want them to. They always did. Obviously it was going to be very dangerous - he was going after Voldemort. And he tells her this at Dumbledore's funeral so it was clear that he was either honoring a request from Dumbledore and/or motivated by Dumbledore's death - it was actually both. Ginny was a smart girl - I think she had already figured out what Harry was going to do and had prepared herself for it.

It's better then being a yesman or woman in a relationship.

I would say both are very unhealthy for a relationship. I'm very glad Jo did not characterize Ginny and Harry's relationship as one where either of them was demanding or a yesman because that would not have been good. She demonstrates Harry and Ginny's relationship to be built upon compromise and understanding - which is the most healthy type of relationship. I have no doubt they would argue from time to time, but not over something so important as Harry going off to fight Voldemort.

I think the circumstances are significant in how all that played out because they were at war and Harry was a central figure in that. Another significant factor was that Ginny was underage. She couldn't go with Harry because of that - the Trace would have made her a hindrance to what they had to do. Harry had to go off to fight and Ginny had no choice but to stay behind. They both had to make sacrifices because defeating Voldemort was more important.

I do agree that, at this point, Ginny is put in the position of making more sacrifices because of her being underage. But that's how relationship work, IMO. There are times when one has to be willing to sacrifice for the other. And that will go both ways. Any couple will find themselves in such positions throughout their lives. When my husband and I first got together, he went off to fight in the Gulf War and I had to stay behind to wait for him to come home. While he was gone, I took care of everything for him - managing his finances and such. I made the majority of the sacrifices at that time. Later, after we were married, he supported my decision to go back to college and complete my degree - he agreed to let me focus my attention on that full time and support the family while I did. He took over a lot of the things that I normally did with the house and the kids so I could do it. He made the majority of the sacrifices then.

I would say the same would hold true for Harry and Ginny. She was willing to make those sacrifices for him because it was important - they were at war and he was part of that. But that doesn't mean that Harry wouldn't also be willing to make sacrifices for her in times when she needed him to. It goes both ways and I think Jo did demonstrate that both of them would be willing to do that for each other if the circumstances called for it.

It would have been selfish for Harry to comfort the love of his life after her brother had just died? Why?

It would have been selfish for him to drag her away from her mother when they were obviously comforting each other. The mature response would be to wait. He had all the time in the world to spend with Ginny and comfort her. It didn't hurt him or Ginny to allow Molly and Ginny to have that time together while he finished up his business so everything was done and he would be free of it finally.

Why not? When the kids are at school Molly probably waits on Arthur (and I don't mean that in a bad way). I doubt she has a raving social life when the kids are gone.

The point being that would be an assumption that really has no basis in the text. Why would anyone assume that Molly just sits around the house all day when Arthur is working and the kids are at school? Of course, there are household duties that have to be taken care of, but that wouldn't stop her from visiting friends or having friends over, going shopping, enjoying a good book, or even just having some "girl" time with a long bubble bath and a glass of Rosmerta's finest.

Yes, that was very nice of Molly.

Yes, it was. It was also very nice of her to invite her Tonks to join the family for Christmas when she realized that Tonks planned on spending it alone. She was a good friend to Tonks.

Molly joined the Order to make the WW a better place for her kids. I don't see how that shows that there is a lot more to her than being a mother.

Because it was never just for her kids. It was for the community as a whole. She put her children at risk by doing so, but the overall goal would be that the world would be a better place for everyone.

She had never fought before so we didn't see her ability to fight. As for her being an active member...well, I won't repeat myself. :lol:

The text shows that she was an active member. We didn't need to see her ability to fight previously. The fact that she was an active Order member was enough to demonstrate that she was capable - they wouldn't have sent her on missions - as we hear about with her guarding the prophecy - if she wasn't able to defend herself.

By the same token, we didn't need to see Lupin transform into a werewolf prior to the night that Pettigrew escaped. The clues were given in the text towards him being a werewolf. That's how this type of thing works. You place the clues and then have the big reveal.

There was only one good thing about that scene: Voldemort's reaction to Bellatrix's death. How romantic!:love: That made up for everything.

:lol: That was quite a reaction.

GOGOGRYFNDOR

June 20th, 2009, 1:52 pm

My favourite overall character is Ginny.
My favourite on the light side is Tonks and my favourite on the dark side is Bellatrix.
The character I would LOVE to know more about is Lily Evans/Potter

Trixa

June 20th, 2009, 3:43 pm

Actually, that was well before Voldemort was on his way. At that point, Neville had assumed that Harry had come back to help them overthrow Snape and notified everyone in the DA with the coins to that effect - Harry's back, we're fighting against Snape. It wasn't until after Harry got to Ravenclaw tower and Alecto pressed her Dark Mark that Voldemort became an issue. The trio knew that he would get around to Hogwarts eventually because Harry saw him decide to check on his Horcruxes, but none of the others did.

Right, but they knew what was coming. That's why they were gathered there. They were preparing for a fight.

I never saw the issue as being whether Ginny trusted Harry. It came across to me that she didn't trust Cho and I found that understandable.
I find that understandable as well. Since Cho sat down disappointed when Ginny told Harry to go there with someone else, she probably intended to make a move on Harry. But the thing is, Cho cannot do anything without Harry's consent. This is why I said that Ginny didn't trust him or their relationship. She was unsure whether Harry would reject Cho's potential advances.

I think every situation would be different actually. Sometimes it's best to confront the person - other's it's best to wait and see. Molly did allow Fleur to stay in her home and she did try to be polite to her in spite of how rude Fleur was being. She was worried because she didn't believe Fleur's feelings were genuine, but she also has to consider Bill in all of that.
To be honest, I would be more concerned about Bill's feelings being genuine considering that Fleur was a Veela. What reason would she have to seduce Bill and agree to marry him, if she didn't want him? It's not like he was rich.
Still, is it better to treat a person with not-so-well hidden disdain than confront them and tell them you don't like their behaviour? Fleur was rude and tactless but Molly was older and I expected better from her.

No - as Molly said to Bellatrix herself. It was about the children.
Molly's children. She says so, "our chidlren," meaning hers and Arthur's I suppose.

So if it had been all that important to her, she could have joined the Death Eaters who invaded the castle during the first round of fighting and looked for Draco then.

Maybe she did but she couldn't find him. Also, Narcissa didn't have her wand at the time so she couldn't have done any fighting. Maybe she stayed out of the castle to be safe.

She did say that she was honored - and left Narcissa and Lucius out of that completely.
"My Lord," said a dark woman halfawy down the table[...] it is an honour to have you here, in our family's house. There can be no higher pleasure."

There's no "I" or "me" in that sentence so I don't see how she is excluding them. I think she wanted Voldemort to stop harassing the Malfoys.

That was the impression I got from this post - #24 on page 2.
Yes, I can see I was unclear on that issue. In my opinion, Bellatrix has feelings for Voldemort, feelings of attraction but not the sincere love that Hermione has for Ron, for example. However, I think she considers herself in love with him even though that doesn't fit my definition of being in love. I see her feelings for him as being fraught with self interest and a desire to gain power through a relationship.

I don't recall Ginny ever saying that the only reason she loved Harry was because he was a hero.

She said that she understood that he wouldn't be happy unless he was hunting Voldemort and maybe that's why she liked him so much. That wasn't about Harry's fame or him being viewed as a hero, IMO. That was about who Harry was - his determination to see that through to the end and finish what Voldemort started. That goes into why people view him as a hero, but it's also who he really is.

She says something like that at the end of HBP. How she loves him because he wants to hunt Voldemort down. Isn't that why she loved him when she was 11? Because he had defeated Voldemort? I wonder if she had fallen in love with him if he had been a regular person and I don't think that's an unreasonable doubt. Ginny doesn't spend much time with Harry during the first four books at least but she still has feelings for him, even though she had no occassion to get to know him.

Actually, there were fights going on all around them. Harry notes a lot of them as he makes his way through the fighting. In the midst of all that fighting, Voldemort was fighting three opponents and Bellatrix was fighting three opponents. I think there was a pause in the fighting when Molly and Bellatrix started dueling, but I don't have my book on hand to check just now to be sure. However, if I am remembering that correctly, that would have only been a pause. Harry stopped the fighting all together when he revealed himself to put a shield charm around Molly - but that was after Bellatrix was dead.

Harry sees other DEs being defeated. When he sees Bellatrix duelling three girls and Voldemort fighting three professors, no one else is fighting anymore. By the time Molly duels Bella, the other DEs have already been defeated. She is the last one. People offer their help to Molly but she refuses and so they watch the two duels. Because there's nothing else left to do at that time.

The fighting would have continued with Harry trying to make his way to Voldemort and Bellatrix trying to kill more children.

Bellatrix isn't after children. It is very probable that Ginny, Hermione and Luna attacked her so that's why she was fighting them.

For me the significance was that Bellatrix's attitude towards children was that she was willing - and enjoyed - torturing and killing those who were muggles or muggleborn - or blood traitors. And she felt it would be an honor for a child to be sacrificed in Voldemort's name regardless of their blood status. That's what made Bellatrix the "anti-mother" - she enjoyed torturing and killing children.
I wouldn't say she enjoyed it, she did it for information. I am also unsure as to whether 16 year olds can really be considered children. It's true that she felt it would be an honour for a child to work for Voldemort but Molly's children worked for Dumbledore so I don't see how that's different.
The only character who truly enjoyed hurting children was Greyback. Why not have Molly duel him? He maimed her son.

Because I don't see where they have anything in common at all. Belltrix is criminally insane - Ginny is mentally stable. Bellatrix enjoys torturing and killing people - Ginny does not. Bellatrix believes that muggleborns should be expunged from the wizarding world completely - Ginny does not. Bellatrix has an obsessive personality with no interests outside of her quest to cleanse the wizarding world and be close to Voldemort - Ginny has an argumentative personality and has a lot of varying interests like Quidditch, playing chess, animals, etc...

They are both into hero worship, they both entertain seemingly hopeless crushes, they both react violently to little or no provocation, they are both temperamental... As for Bellatrix being insane - have Ginny be raised by a family of pureblood supremacists, give her the experience of war and 14 years in Azkaban and you have Bella.

Ginny was a smart girl - I think she had already figured out what Harry was going to do and had prepared herself for it.

There is a scene in DH in which Ginny overhears a conversation between Harry and his friends and is surprised o find out that they actually plan to find Voldemort and kill him.

I would say the same would hold true for Harry and Ginny. She was willing to make those sacrifices for him because it was important - they were at war and he was part of that. But that doesn't mean that Harry wouldn't also be willing to make sacrifices for her in times when she needed him to.
When did he do so, though? I see Harry as a person who is too immature and maybe even a little selfish to be in a good relationship. I don't think he ever feels as though he owes his partner something or as though things are expected from him.

The point being that would be an assumption that really has no basis in the text. Why would anyone assume that Molly just sits around the house all day when Arthur is working and the kids are at school? Of course, there are household duties that have to be taken care of, but that wouldn't stop her from visiting friends or having friends over, going shopping, enjoying a good book, or even just having some "girl" time with a long bubble bath and a glass of Rosmerta's finest.

We don't know. That's the thing about off page. We can only speculate. We are both right or we are both wrong. We will never know. We do know what she does on page. On page, she is mostly a mother to her seven kids.

It would have been selfish for him to drag her away from her mother when they were obviously comforting each other.
He didn't have to drag her away. Do you think Ginny would have minded if Harry had been there?

Because it was never just for her kids. It was for the community as a whole. She put her children at risk by doing so, but the overall goal would be that the world would be a better place for everyone.

We don't know what her motivations were. But considering her character I would say it was to create a safer world for her children. Why didn't she fight in the first war, though? Maybe she was hoping that even if Voldemort took over, they would be spared but then when her children grew up and became friends with Harry Potter and when she also got attached to him, they had to be on his side.

The fact that she was an active Order member was enough to demonstrate that she was capable - they wouldn't have sent her on missions - as we hear about with her guarding the prophecy - if she wasn't able to defend herself.

Maybe they didn't think she would be in danger. Maybe she was to call them if things got rough.

meesha1971

June 20th, 2009, 5:37 pm

Right, but they knew what was coming. That's why they were gathered there. They were preparing for a fight.

Against Snape. That was the message that Neville sent out - they all came back because they thought Harry had returned to help them overthrow Snape and the Carrows.

I find that understandable as well. Since Cho sat down disappointed when Ginny told Harry to go there with someone else, she probably intended to make a move on Harry. But the thing is, Cho cannot do anything without Harry's consent. This is why I said that Ginny didn't trust him or their relationship. She was unsure whether Harry would reject Cho's potential advances.

Cho making move on Harry would be a problem even with him saying no. He had something more important to take care of and didn't need to be wasting time fending off Cho.

However, I would agree that Harry potentially still having some feelings for Cho would also be a concern - though I think that would have been the lesser issue. Considering the circumstances, I consider it normal for Ginny to feel a little insecure. Ginny hadn't even seen Harry for a year and they'd had no contact at all. At that point in time, how could she be sure of anything? I do think her primary concern was Cho and the problems that would cause either way, but I see her reaction overall as very normal for a teenage girl.

I think people too often expect these characters to behave in ways that would not be realistic for teenagers. Teenagers are often irrational and react emotionally by instinct.

To be honest, I would be more concerned about Bill's feelings being genuine considering that Fleur was a Veela. What reason would she have to seduce Bill and agree to marry him, if she didn't want him? It's not like he was rich.
Still, is it better to treat a person with not-so-well hidden disdain than confront them and tell them you don't like their behaviour? Fleur was rude and tactless but Molly was older and I expected better from her.

I saw it as both actually. It comes across to me that Molly suspected that Fleur had used her powers to control and manipulate Bill. Had that been the case - that would put Fleur's feelings for Bill into question as well because, if she genuinely loved him, then she would not treat him that way.

I saw it as human. I never expected Molly to be a saint so lapses in judgment - particularly such small ones like this - didn't bother me. She realized that she was wrong in the end and she and Fleur build a good relationship. It's not the lapse in judgment that is significant - it's the fact that they overcame it, IMO.

Molly's children. She says so, "our chidlren," meaning hers and Arthur's I suppose.

Arthur was never mentioned. It is most likely that Molly was referring to all the children present and "our" was in reference to the parents as a group.

Maybe she did but she couldn't find him. Also, Narcissa didn't have her wand at the time so she couldn't have done any fighting. Maybe she stayed out of the castle to be safe.

There's no indication. And Draco was out in the entrance hall where he could have easily been found if she had. Staying out of the castle for her own safety would be putting herself ahead of her son as well, IMO.

"My Lord," said a dark woman halfawy down the table[...] it is an honour to have you here, in our family's house. There can be no higher pleasure."

There's no "I" or "me" in that sentence so I don't see how she is excluding them. I think she wanted Voldemort to stop harassing the Malfoys.

I would have to disagree because she continually demonstrates how ashamed she is of them and that she doesn't want to be dragged down with them. Given that she waited until Voldemort was done without stepping in to defend them at all, her statement here is in reference to herself - an attempt to separate herself from Lucius and Narcissa, IMO.

Yes, I can see I was unclear on that issue. In my opinion, Bellatrix has feelings for Voldemort, feelings of attraction but not the sincere love that Hermione has for Ron, for example. However, I think she considers herself in love with him even though that doesn't fit my definition of being in love. I see her feelings for him as being fraught with self interest and a desire to gain power through a relationship.

Ahh, in that case we are in agreement on that. She loved him, but it was her warped version of love rather than genuine love.

She says something like that at the end of HBP. How she loves him because he wants to hunt Voldemort down. Isn't that why she loved him when she was 11? Because he had defeated Voldemort? I wonder if she had fallen in love with him if he had been a regular person and I don't think that's an unreasonable doubt. Ginny doesn't spend much time with Harry during the first four books at least but she still has feelings for him, even though she had no occassion to get to know him.

She didn't love him at the age of 11 - she didn't even know him then and hadn't met him. She had a celebrity crush - rather like a young girl might have on Zac Efron.

To use that analogy, one could create a similar scenario in which Zac Efron becomes friends with a guy whose younger sister has a crush on him because he's a celebrity. As that girl is around him more she would get to know him as a person and it would be entirely possible for them to fall in love. If she admires him for his talent, why would that make her feelings any less genuine?

Ginny actually did spend quite a bit of time around Harry. She didn't speak much around him initially, but she has eyes and ears - you get to know a lot about who a person is from observing them. She was around him for several weeks when he stayed at the Burrow in COS. She was around quite a bit during the school year - in the common room and at meal times - where Harry noted her presence. By GOF, she was actually spending time with them on occasion - and participating in conversations rather than clamming up when Harry was around. In OOTP, they spend pretty much the entire summer holiday at Grimmauld Place and Ginny started hanging around with them more then - same over the Christmas break - and she starts hanging around them more at school and they were all part of the DA. In HBP, Ginny is hanging round with them all the time at the Burrow.

Harry was a regular person facing extraordinary circumstances. That didn't change the type of person he was because so much of that was inherited from his parents. The qualities that resulted in the wizarding world seeing him as a hero were part of him - that is who he was. The fact that Ginny liked and admired those qualities in him doesn't diminish her feelings for him, IMO. Ginny demonstrated in the text that she did know Harry because she understood him very well, IMO.

Harry sees other DEs being defeated. When he sees Bellatrix duelling three girls and Voldemort fighting three professors, no one else is fighting anymore. By the time Molly duels Bella, the other DEs have already been defeated. She is the last one. People offer their help to Molly but she refuses and so they watch the two duels. Because there's nothing else left to do at that time.

Harry sees some of the Death Eaters being defeated - and it wasn't just Death Eaters fighting for Voldemort. There was still fighting going on all around him. He noted that as well because it was difficult for him to navigate through the Great Hall because of it. I haven't had a chance to check yet, but I do think there was a pause in the fighting when Molly went after Bellatrix, but that wouldn't have ended the fighting - it would have started back up again because there were so many of them and they hadn't all been defeated yet.

Harry revealing himself does stop it because everyone is shocked that he's alive. But that wouldn't have happened at that point if Molly had just stunned Bellatrix because Harry wouldn't have revealed himself at that point if Voldemort hadn't aimed a curse at her.

Bellatrix isn't after children. It is very probable that Ginny, Hermione and Luna attacked her so that's why she was fighting them.

I wouldn't say she enjoyed it, she did it for information. I am also unsure as to whether 16 year olds can really be considered children. It's true that she felt it would be an honour for a child to work for Voldemort but Molly's children worked for Dumbledore so I don't see how that's different.
The only character who truly enjoyed hurting children was Greyback. Why not have Molly duel him? He maimed her son.

Just to clarify - I am referring to them as children in the sense that they are somebody's child - all the parents had joined the fight as well. And a lot of the ones fighting were very young - 17/18 - and 16 in the case of Ginny, Luna, and Colin Creevey.

However, Bellatrix enjoyed torture and killing in any circumstances - that was emphasized on page. She didn't need to employ torture to get information - she was a fairly accomplished legillimens/occlumens herself and could have used that. If she didn't enjoy it, torture would have been her last choice - not the first one. And she demonstrated through her behavior how much she enjoyed it.

Bellatrix didn't just consider it an honor to work for Voldemort - she considered it an honor to be sacrficed/die for Voldemort - child or adult. That's the difference. No one in the Order would have considered it an honor to be sacrificed in such a manner - nor would they have considered it an honor for the children to be sacrificed in such a manner. They were willing to accept the risk of fighting because it was the right thing to do, but had Dumbledore ordered them to sacrifice one of their children, they would not have done it.

They are both into hero worship, they both entertain seemingly hopeless crushes, they both react violently to little or no provocation, they are both temperamental... As for Bellatrix being insane - have Ginny be raised by a family of pureblood supremacists, give her the experience of war and 14 years in Azkaban and you have Bella.

None of that applies to Ginny, IMO. I think "hero worship" is a bit of a stretch in regards to Bellatrix's obsession with Voldemort as well - she was obsessed and she certainly worshipped him, but he was no hero. :lol: Ginny had a celebrity crush for a while, but that evolved into genuine friendship and then love for Harry. Voldemort was incapable of love so there was no hope for Bellatrix in that regard. Ginny never entertained a hopeless crush - there was always a chance that Harry might one day return her feelings however slight that was. Ginny never reacted violently without provocation. Bellatrix didn't react at all - she was just violent period and attacked because she took pleasure in hurting others.

And Ginny wasn't raised by pureblood supremacists or any of that so it is irrelevant, IMO. If that were the case then she would be an entirely different person - genetically and psychologically - so that would be a moot point.

There is a scene in DH in which Ginny overhears a conversation between Harry and his friends and is surprised o find out that they actually plan to find Voldemort and kill him.

She knew they were going after Voldemort - she was telling Harry that she thought Molly was trying to keep them so busy they wouldn't be able to plan things so they could leave. And she said that in HBP - she knew he was going to be hunting Voldemort. She was surprised that he was planning to kill Voldemort.

When did he do so, though? I see Harry as a person who is too immature and maybe even a little selfish to be in a good relationship. I don't think he ever feels as though he owes his partner something or as though things are expected from him.

We only saw the early stages of their relationship. That would have been later - after they got back together - sometime during those 19 years between the battle and the epilogue.

I saw Harry as being very mature and very unselfish. He put his own life on hold completely - gave up everything else that was important to him - to go after Voldemort and finish it once and for all. He was willing to sacrifice his life for the wizarding world. That tells us a lot about Harry as a person. The circumstances within the time frame of the story were not conducive to him being a good boyfriend. Once Voldemort was gone, he could live a more normal life and focus on such things.

But, really, one should never feel as though they "owe" their partner anything or that things are "expected" from them. What you give in a relationship should be freely given - not viewed as a debt or an obligation, IMO. I'm glad Harry wasn't like that.

We don't know. That's the thing about off page. We can only speculate. We are both right or we are both wrong. We will never know. We do know what she does on page. On page, she is mostly a mother to her seven kids.

She's also an active member of the Order with friends outside of her family. Harry sees Molly primarily as a mother because that's what she was to him - a surrogate mother. But Jo included more information to show that there was more to Molly than that, IMO.

He didn't have to drag her away. Do you think Ginny would have minded if Harry had been there?

My point was that I don't see any reason to fault Harry for giving them that time together to comfort each other. Voldemort was gone and there was no longer any threat to him. He had his whole life ahead of him. Giving Ginny a few minutes alone with her mother while he finished tying up loose ends wasn't going to make any difference. I saw that as a very unselfish thing for him to do.

We don't know what her motivations were. But considering her character I would say it was to create a safer world for her children. Why didn't she fight in the first war, though? Maybe she was hoping that even if Voldemort took over, they would be spared but then when her children grew up and became friends with Harry Potter and when she also got attached to him, they had to be on his side.

I think it's more likely that it was because she had seven children during that time frame. The first war extended from 1970 to 1981. Molly was either pregnant and/or taking care of babies/toddlers during those years.

Bill - 11/29/1970
Charlie - 12/12/1972
Percy - 8/22/1976
The twins - 4/1/1978
Ron - 3/1/1980
Ginny - 8/11/1981

The Weasley kids would all be "baby boomers" in that they were all born during the first war.

However, I think we do know that Arthur and Molly wanted to make the world a better place for everyone - not just their own children. If all they cared about was their own children, they wouldn't have put them at risk to fight in the first place, IMO.

Maybe they didn't think she would be in danger. Maybe she was to call them if things got rough.

How was she supposed to call them from within the DoM? Wizards can't use cell phones. She wouldn't have access to the floo down there. She had to be able to defend herself. The whole reason they were taking turns to guard the prophecy was because they knew Voldemort was trying to get it so - whoever's turn it was - there was always the potential of having to fight.

Trixa

June 20th, 2009, 6:34 pm

I think people too often expect these characters to behave in ways that would not be realistic for teenagers.
I'm a teenager too.
I saw it as human. I never expected Molly to be a saint so lapses in judgment - particularly such small ones like this - didn't bother me. She realized that she was wrong in the end and she and Fleur build a good relationship. It's not the lapse in judgment that is significant - it's the fact that they overcame it, IMO.
The way they acted is also important because it says something about their personalities. If Bill hadn't been hurt how long would their being hostile towards each other would have lasted? Very long I suppose since Molly was unwilling to have a serious discussion with Fleur.

Arthur was never mentioned. It is most likely that Molly was referring to all the children present and "our" was in reference to the parents as a group.

Amazing how much we argue over semantics in this thread. Especially the word "our" seems to cause problems. :lol:

She didn't love him at the age of 11 - she didn't even know him then and hadn't met him. She had a celebrity crush - rather like a young girl might have on Zac Efron.

To use that analogy, one could create a similar scenario in which Zac Efron becomes friends with a guy whose younger sister has a crush on him because he's a celebrity. As that girl is around him more she would get to know him as a person and it would be entirely possible for them to fall in love. If she admires him for his talent, why would that make her feelings any less genuine?

It wouldn't. But it is possible that his being Zac Effron would be the main reason why she was in love with him. Ginny would have probably never paid any attention to Harry had he not been the Chosen One. He seems to be a bit different from all the other guys she dates so maybe he isn't really her type.

However, Bellatrix enjoyed torture and killing in any circumstances - that was emphasized on page. She didn't need to employ torture to get information - she was a fairly accomplished legillimens/occlumens herself and could have used that. If she didn't enjoy it, torture would have been her last choice - not the first one. And she demonstrated through her behavior how much she enjoyed it.

Voldemort was also an accomplished Legilimens yet he tortured people as well. He tortured Ollivander. So we don't know exactly how the Legilimency thing works and how good it is for finding out something.

Bellatrix didn't just consider it an honor to work for Voldemort - she considered it an honor to be sacrficed/die for Voldemort - child or adult.
I really doubt Bellatrix would have died for Voldemort. What she says to Narcissa only shows that she has no understanding of motherly love not that it would be an honour to have your kid killed by Voldemort. She simply doesn't understand how much Narcissa loves her son and why that is so hard for her.

None of that applies to Ginny, IMO. I think "hero worship" is a bit of a stretch in regards to Bellatrix's obsession with Voldemort as well - she was obsessed and she certainly worshipped him, but he was no hero.
He was a hero to her and that's what counts.

Voldemort was incapable of love so there was no hope for Bellatrix in that regard.
You don't need love to be in a relationship. Voldemort makes his feelings for her clear at the end of DH, IMO, so if they hadn't died...who knows?

And Ginny wasn't raised by pureblood supremacists or any of that so it is irrelevant, IMO. If that were the case then she would be an entirely different person - genetically and psychologically - so that would be a moot point.

She would be an different person indeed, she would be Bellatrix. Ginny has been raised with love in a tolerant family yet she still has a violent streak to her. If that streak had been encouraged and directed at a particular group of people then things would have gone downhill very fast.

She was surprised that he was planning to kill Voldemort.
What did she think he was going to do?

We only saw the early stages of their relationship. That would have been later - after they got back together - sometime during those 19 years between the battle and the epilogue.
Off page you mean? I still prefer to stick to what we see on page or what is mentioned on page. During the course of their relationship on page, we never see Harry making any compromises or sacrifice anything for Ginny.

I saw Harry as being very mature and very unselfish. He put his own life on hold completely - gave up everything else that was important to him - to go after Voldemort and finish it once and for all. He was willing to sacrifice his life for the wizarding world. That tells us a lot about Harry as a person. The circumstances within the time frame of the story were not conducive to him being a good boyfriend. Once Voldemort was gone, he could live a more normal life and focus on such things.
He is unselfish when it comes to the WW but not when it comes to relationships. He fell in love with Cho but she had a baggage and he couldn't handle that. Enter Ginny, AKA Cho nr 2. When Harry fell in love with Cho the readers got to see what kind of girls Harry likes. He likes them popular, pretty and good Quidditch players. Cho had all that but she wasn't over Cedric yet and she cried too much. So Ginny becomes popular, pretty and a good Quidditch player but without the crying. In other words, she becomes the perfect mate for him.

My point was that I don't see any reason to fault Harry for giving them that time together to comfort each other. Voldemort was gone and there was no longer any threat to him. He had his whole life ahead of him. Giving Ginny a few minutes alone with her mother while he finished tying up loose ends wasn't going to make any difference. I saw that as a very unselfish thing for him to do.
It wasn't unselfish because he didn't feel like he wanted to be with her then and that's what is so depressing. He felt no need to go and comfort her.

However, I think we do know that Arthur and Molly wanted to make the world a better place for everyone - not just their own children. If all they cared about was their own children, they wouldn't have put them at risk to fight in the first place, IMO.
They didn't. The kids chose to fight. Molly and Arthur only joined them in that fight.

How was she supposed to call them from within the DoM? Wizards can't use cell phones. She wouldn't have access to the floo down there. She had to be able to defend herself. The whole reason they were taking turns to guard the prophecy was because they knew Voldemort was trying to get it so - whoever's turn it was - there was always the potential of having to fight.
To be honest, I don't remember Molly being at the Ministry at all so I don't know how to respond to that. I remember her guarding the Grimmauld Place but not the Prophecy.

Bill - 11/29/1970
Charlie - 12/12/1972
Percy - 8/22/1976
The twins - 4/1/1978
Ron - 3/1/1980
Ginny - 8/11/1981
How do you know when they were born? Even if she had kids at home she could still participate in simpler mission like guarding something. She didn't have to do any fighting.

wickedwickedboy

June 20th, 2009, 9:53 pm

Why are they polar opposites? Besides the fact that one is good and the other is evil of course, but then you could say Bellatrix is the polar opposite of all women on the good side. I wouldn't want to offend Bellatrix by comparing her to Ginny but they do have some things in common.

What is the point of comparing Ginny to a woman who is on the evil side, noted as being highly imbalanced, behaving insanely in canon, willinging torturing children and others, a murderer, holding obsessed unrequited love for the most evil wizard in the series (Voldemort), uncaring and incidentally unfaithful to her husband, and an escape convict. She also finds out things about those she torments and makes verbal comments with the intent to harm - twisting a knife in their back as it were. And Bella's overall attitude with those she does not like (even if on her side) is nasty. Those are characterization factors, imo.

I mean you can't find a better comparison to Ginny in canon than Bellatrix Lestrange? I understand if you happen to like Bella a lot, comparing her to Ginny doesn't make all of those things I noted from canon about Bella go away and those are character attributes that Ginny simply does not share, imo. Her silly hexing of Zach and petty jealousy in relation to her boyfriend is not comparable to the overblown characterization of these ideas that Bella was subjected to by JKR, imo. I respect your view of course, but I don't see it as a realistic comparison and it kind of sounds like you just don't like Ginny to me - although I may be mistaken. Is there some other point in making the comparison?

I will use one exchange to make my point:

And Ginny wasn't raised by pureblood supremacists or any of that so it is irrelevant, IMO. If that were the case then she would be an entirely different person - genetically and psychologically - so that would be a moot point.

She would be an different person indeed, she would be Bellatrix. Ginny has been raised with love in a tolerant family yet she still has a violent streak to her. If that streak had been encouraged and directed at a particular group of people then things would have gone downhill very fast.

But isn't this true of every good sider in the book? We see Harry throwing hardened snowballs at Draco from under his cloak, jumping into a brawl and physically fighting, humiliating Filch - twice - surrounded by a group of lauging students while he hexed him; pulling 'unknown' curses out of a book marked for enemies to use, crucioing Carrow, hexing for fun with Goyles "alarmingly rapid growth of his toe nails" - and more. If raised distinctly, with that streak encouraged and directed at a particular group, then things may have gone downhill very fast for him also. Do the same with Ron - or young Sirius, Hermione (relative to her punching Draco in the nose; confunding Cormac; sending a flock of birds at Ron, etc.) young James, Lupin (in wolf form), Kingsley/Moody/Tonks (in their sometimes necessarily violent efforts in fighting evil) - etc., etc., you turn the behavior of any of these individuals toward evil doings and you get a Bella, or young Draco/Snape, or Rockwell, Carrow, Yaxley, Lucius. That is true for everyone in the series, imo.

I don't see why you are highlighting Ginny in this way, as if she had some kind of extraordinary violent streak shown that others did not, imo. It seems to me that she was like everyone else in the series on the good side.

Trixa

June 20th, 2009, 10:24 pm

wickedwickedboy

June 21st, 2009, 4:45 am

I didn't realize my comparing Ginny to Bella was offensive to anyone so I apologize for that. I never said Ginny was evil or crazy or anything. The thing is, we're meant to see similarities between Harry and Voldemort as well, without it meaning that Harry is a megalomaniac psycho who wants to take over the world. The comparisons don't have to be taken so literally. I have already said what I think Bella and Ginny have in common and being insane wasn't one of those things. And even though I like Bella, I have never trivialized her evil and sadistic nature nor claimed she was a nice girl.

Ah I see. I am no where near offended, so no worries on that front. I was truly perplexed. I didn't realize you were pointing out the same thing I was pretty much, that similarities can be found in all characters. My reading (only back 2 pages) led me to believe you thought there was more to it than that with these particular two characters.

However, I agree, you can find similarities between any two characters in the book - I would imagine it has to do with them all being derived by the same author. I have noted that she'll have people speaking similarly at times, although I often wondered if she had in mind people being from various parts of Great Britain and Scotland - plus other countries of course and fitting their speech accordingly. And of course, actions are almost universally carried out by more than one character in the series.

I think for the females, it was perhaps a little more obvious because we had fewer trolling scenes where they were depicted in detail. She'd describe Molly and then the conversation would zoom off relative to matters not concerning Molly - so there were times when all of the females kind of got the shaft to me as the series was more male centric, imo.

meesha1971

June 21st, 2009, 12:54 pm

I'm a teenager too.

Actually, you are an adult - 19, right? Young adult, but still an adult. There is a great deal of emotional development that occurs between the ages of 15/16 and 19. I would expect a 19 year old be more mature than a 15/16 year old because of that.

A 16 year old girl being insecure under those circumstances and reacting emotionally is normal and realistic, IMO. Go back a few books and Hermione was basically doing the same thing with Ron - embarrassing him in front of Padma because she was jealous of the attention Padma was paying to him after the second task. She had reason to be insecure about Ron's feelings at that point so her reaction was normal for a 15 year old girl, IMO.

The way they acted is also important because it says something about their personalities. If Bill hadn't been hurt how long would their being hostile towards each other would have lasted? Very long I suppose since Molly was unwilling to have a serious discussion with Fleur.

Neither was Fleur. That's the distinction that I make. They were both handling that situation badly. However, at the same time, I would say both of them avoided the issue because of Bill. Though I also think that is very normal and realistic as well - it's not uncommon for a spouse to have a tense relationship with one or both of their in-laws.

Fleur being part Veela was a significant factor in all of that because it put her in the position of having to prove her feelings for genuine and that she wasn't just using her powers to control and manipulate Bill. While Bill wasn't extremely wealthy, he did have a good job with Gringotts and was described as handsome and "cool". I don't think a discussion would have really sufficed to resolve that issue because they needed to see that her feelings really were genuine. In that respect, I don't think anything but a major event like Bill being attacked would have completely resolved the issue because Fleur was part Veela and her behavior to that point didn't really paint her as a loving person. What she did after Bill was attacked did more to show Molly that she really did love Bill than anything she could have said.

Amazing how much we argue over semantics in this thread. Especially the word "our" seems to cause problems. :lol:

Not just this thread - were you around for the great "platonic" debate? :lol:

Seriously though, Bellatrix was being specific to Molly - your children, when mummy's gone. Arthur wasn't part of that threat. So it comes across to me that Molly is referring to everyone.

It wouldn't. But it is possible that his being Zac Effron would be the main reason why she was in love with him. Ginny would have probably never paid any attention to Harry had he not been the Chosen One. He seems to be a bit different from all the other guys she dates so maybe he isn't really her type.

If that were the case, then I would say that girl wasn't in love with Zac at all.

Ginny would never have met Harry because he was the chosen one - that was not the context of her getting to know him. She met him and got to know him because he was best friends with Ron and that allowed her to see him outside of school and get to know him as a person. The only thing that would have made a difference is whether or not Ron and Harry would have had the opportunity to meet and become friends. And I believe they would have. So if you remove the whole situation with Voldemort, then you have Harry visiting his best friend over the holidays - and vice versa. Ginny and Harry would still have gotten to know each other and, because they were so compatible, they would most likely have fallen in love with each other regardless.

As for Dean and Michael - the reason those relationships failed was because they were not Ginny's type. She gave it a shot, but neither worked out because they were not compatible.

Voldemort was also an accomplished Legilimens yet he tortured people as well. He tortured Ollivander. So we don't know exactly how the Legilimency thing works and how good it is for finding out something.

Voldemort also enjoyed torturing people - he could have used legillimency to get information without torturing them. The only factor there was if the person knew occlumency and could block him - in which case, torture would be a last resort rather than the first option chosen.

I really doubt Bellatrix would have died for Voldemort. What she says to Narcissa only shows that she has no understanding of motherly love not that it would be an honour to have your kid killed by Voldemort. She simply doesn't understand how much Narcissa loves her son and why that is so hard for her.

Bellatrix did die for Voldemort. What she said to Narcissa demonstrated that she saw that as an honor. She thought Narcissa should be proud as she was proud of Draco for being willing to die for Voldemort.

He was a hero to her and that's what counts.

I was being sarcastic. :lol: I still wouldn't apply that to Ginny. She never loved Harry because he was a hero. She loved him for who he was.

You don't need love to be in a relationship. Voldemort makes his feelings for her clear at the end of DH, IMO, so if they hadn't died...who knows?

Voldemort expressed anger that his last, best lieutenant had been killed - not a romantic attachment. Voldemort wasn't capable of being in a relationship like that - not even with Bellatrix's warped version of love. He was a loner because he didn't trust anyone and would never have allowed anyone to get that close to him.

She would be an different person indeed, she would be Bellatrix. Ginny has been raised with love in a tolerant family yet she still has a violent streak to her. If that streak had been encouraged and directed at a particular group of people then things would have gone downhill very fast.

That's the point actually - that would not be Ginny. That's not a comparison because that is changing every single thing about her and making her into an entirely different person with an entirely different personality.

Let me put it this way - if Ginny had been born to Arthur and Molly and then kidnapped as a baby and raised by Bellatrix's parents, then she would still not be like Bellatrix because she would still have the qualities she inherited from her parents - compassion, a sense of fairness, loving nature, etc... Just like Harry didn't get anything from the Dursleys and grew up to be like his parents. If you leave Ginny as she is in terms of her personality and change her upbringing, you wouldn't end up with Bellatrix - you would end up with Sirius Black or Andromeda.

Ginny didn't have a violent streak as you're describing. Her choice of weapon was the Bat Bogey Hex - extremely gross, but not particularly violent. Flying into Smith was the closest she comes to actual violence - and even there she knows his injuries would be minimal and Madame Pomfrey could fix him up in a minute. Harry got hit in the head with a bludger that fractured his skull and was healed in a minute or so and only had to stay overnight in the hospital wing. That would have been a major injury in the real world - and likely fatal. We have to remember that healing in the wizarding world is very different to the real world - what would cause severe injury for us is only a minor annoyance for them.

That makes a distinction in their actions. Bellatrix isn't going to toy around with a spell that makes a person's boogers turn into bats and flap around their head. She's not going to waste time knocking someone down and leaving them so they can be healed and be up and around in a few minutes. She's going to immediately go for pain and severe injury and/or death. She's not going to leave someone with minor injuries - she's going to "play" with them until they're dead or insane. She's out to cause pain and hurt people as much as she can because she enjoys it.

What did she think he was going to do?

I think she did know on some level that's how it would end up, but hadn't really allowed herself to think about it. When he confirmed it, it came as a surprise to her.

Off page you mean? I still prefer to stick to what we see on page or what is mentioned on page. During the course of their relationship on page, we never see Harry making any compromises or sacrifice anything for Ginny.

But we see that he is capable of that. And we see them 19 years later, happy with three normal, well adjusted kids. They have a good, healthy relationship. We don't get all the details of them getting back together and building that relationship, but we see the end result.

He is unselfish when it comes to the WW but not when it comes to relationships. He fell in love with Cho but she had a baggage and he couldn't handle that. Enter Ginny, AKA Cho nr 2. When Harry fell in love with Cho the readers got to see what kind of girls Harry likes. He likes them popular, pretty and good Quidditch players. Cho had all that but she wasn't over Cedric yet and she cried too much. So Ginny becomes popular, pretty and a good Quidditch player but without the crying. In other words, she becomes the perfect mate for him.

I didn't get that at all. I would agree that Cho defined the aspects of Harry's "type" in terms of appearance - athletic, long shiny hair, etc... - but not in terms of personality. Harry was attracted to Cho because she was pretty and they had Quidditch in common. But when they actually got to go out on a date, that was it - they had nothing else. Once they'd exhausted the subject of Quidditch, neither of them could think of anything else to talk about. It was awkward and uncomfortable for both of them. Cho crying over Cedric all the time put Cedric in between them as well - leaving Harry to compete with a dead man for her affections. And that was really all she ever wanted to talk about with Harry - how Cedric died, did he say anything about her, etc... That relationship was doomed from the start because they were not compatible at all.

The only thing Ginny has in common with Cho is that they both played Quidditch and had long, shiny hair. Their personalities were completely opposite. Harry and Ginny had no problems in finding things to talk about - he enjoyed walking back to the castle with her after practices and it wasn't awkward or stilted. They had a similar sense of humor and shared a "private joke" quite a few times. Harry wasn't comfortable with emotional displays - but I really don't know any teenage boy who is. Come to think of it, I don't know many men who are either. :lol: But Harry did show that he was willing to at least try to comfort someone who was hurting - he did so with Hermione when she was hurting because of Ron and Lavender. He wasn't sure what to do and it wasn't comfortable for him, but she was his friend and he was willing to try. Same for Ginny in DH - he wanted to comfort her, but wasn't sure how and had to deal with Ron's anger on top of it.

So, no, I never saw Harry as a selfish person - just a normal teenage boy figuring out how to deal with things like that.

It wasn't unselfish because he didn't feel like he wanted to be with her then and that's what is so depressing. He felt no need to go and comfort her.

Again, I didn't get that at all. I think his thoughts demonstrate that he did want to go to her - that was his first instinct. Up to that point, he hadn't had a free minute to himself because everyone there wanted to talk to him, shake his hand, etc... But, once Luna distracts everyone so he can put on the invisibility cloak, Ginny is the first person he notices - the first person he thinks of. But he realized that he had time - there was no rush because he had all the time he wanted now. He could give her that time with her mother and finish up what he had to do - which would leave him free to focus on having a normal life, being with Ginny, etc...

They didn't. The kids chose to fight. Molly and Arthur only joined them in that fight.

Molly put her children at risk when she told Dumbledore that he could count on her and Arthur at the end of GOF. She knew then that she and/or Arthur could die and they would be left alone. She knew then that Voldemort or his Death Eaters could come after her family simply because they were in the Order and fighting against him. She knew what the dangers were, but she joined anyway.

To be honest, I don't remember Molly being at the Ministry at all so I don't know how to respond to that. I remember her guarding the Grimmauld Place but not the Prophecy.

Sirius told the trio that Molly was on a mission for the Order when he talked to them through the floo in OOTP - when he delivered Molly's message to Ron that she didn't want him to be part of the DA. We found out later that they were all taking turns to guard the prophecy. Arthur was doing the same when he was attacked by Nagini.

How do you know when they were born? Even if she had kids at home she could still participate in simpler mission like guarding something. She didn't have to do any fighting.

Jo revealed the birth dates for quite a few of the characters. Harry's was 7/31/1980, Hermione's was 9/19/1979, Neville's was 7/30/1980 - there's a list of them on Mugglenet I believe or you can look them up on the Harry Potter Wiki. Jo had that calendar on her site and it would show a "Happy Birthday" message for various characters on their birthdays - and some she revealed in interviews.

However, even without knowing the exact date of birth, the years are fairly easy to figure out with what's given in the books - using Ron's age as the starting point and calculating the years on the basis of when they went to Hogwarts/what year they were in. Ginny was one year younger than Ron, the twins were two years older than Ron, Percy was two years older than the twins, Charlie was three years older than Percy, and Bill was two years older than Charlie.

At the end of the war - the night Voldemort tried to kill Harry - Bill would have been 10, Charlie 9, Percy 6, the twins, 4, Ron 19 months, and Ginny about 2 months.

I think that would have limited Molly being able to join the Order completely. Even standing guard over something would potentially result in her fighting and who was going to watch 6 kids - all under the age of 10 and fairly rambunctious boys - while she and Arthur fought with the Order? It's one thing to ask Sirius or another Order member to keep an eye on teenagers who can fend for themselves in terms of using the bathroom, getting to bed, getting something to eat, etc... Quite another to ask someone to babysit 6 kids that will need someone to change diapers, wipe them, bathe them, cook for them, etc... I think that was a practical decision at that time - and fear for their safety would have been even greater at those ages because none of them had even gotten a wand yet, let alone learned anything about defensive spells.

And I really don't see anyone doing stuff for the Oder when they were pregnant - not even Lily or Alice Longbottom. Though neither of them got pregnant until that final year. Molly was pregnant through a great deal of that time.

Lunatic

June 21st, 2009, 2:13 pm

What is the point of comparing Ginny to a woman who is on the evil side, noted as being highly imbalanced, behaving insanely in canon, willinging torturing children and others, a murderer, holding obsessed unrequited love for the most evil wizard in the series (Voldemort), uncaring and incidentally unfaithful to her husband, and an escape convict. She also finds out things about those she torments and makes verbal comments with the intent to harm - twisting a knife in their back as it were. And Bella's overall attitude with those she does not like (even if on her side) is nasty. Those are characterization factors, imo.

I mean you can't find a better comparison to Ginny in canon than Bellatrix Lestrange?

Finally a post I can post without getting deep into a huge conversation.

Well they are both the female characters who are closest to the male principles on either side, and if your not particularly a Ginny fan you can see alot of parallells.

1) As the female characters closest and most devoted to their respective causes, they both fulfill a Queenly role, though Voldemort, incapable of love, leaves Belletrix suffering.

2) obsessed unrequited love
Certainly describes Ginny in the first two books.

3) Both are more competent beyond their age.

4) And Bella's overall attitude with those she does not like (even if on her side) is nasty. Those are characterization factors, imo.

That certainly Ginny's attitiude torward Micheal Corner (would love to hear his side of that), Cho, Zacharias Smith and I suspect many others. In fact Ginny at times comes off as rude, boorish and spoiled. Some of her justifications remind me of Dudley's "He deserved it" for beating up a ten year old.

5)She also finds out things about those she torments and makes verbal comments

Ginny's Flem comment was charming, as was her treatment at least one of her ex's. Yes, Fleur isn't fitting well with the Weasleys but if my sister treated my future wife that rudely, I wouldn't be happy about it.

6) Both are younger then their "love".

Fact is, you could see AU Pureblood snob raised Ginny! turning out very much like Belletrix, adoring the dark lord, devoted, contemptous of others. A Weasley raised Belletrix is harder to contemplate, but she certainly would be a nicer person. Without the snobbery, she's make a good Gryffindor.

Now my answers to the original questions:

1. Favourite over-all character?

Luna, in fact I loved how insightful and wise she was in a slightly off way. Her doing Quiditch commentary was wonderful as well but most of all, she knew what to do for Dobby, to inspire the trio at Hogwarts etc.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

Luna, evil, Narcissa. She is a loving mother, passing on her values, wanting her kid to do well. The fact that she's on the wrong side and Draco is a git is wonderfully twisted.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

Two for the same reason.

Andromeda Tonks in the books proper because I suspect she must have gone through an incredible journey to go from being Andromeda Black to becoming Andromeda Tonks.

Post DH, Cho Chang. I interpreted Jo's "married unnamed Muggle" comment as an attempt to dismiss the character but oddly enough it had the opposite effect on me.
Cho is the only character in cannon to date successfully across houses. She reaches out to Harry in OotP in part to fight Voldemort.
She epitimizes, quite by accident I'm sure, the positive "house unity" message of the books verses the negitive Gryffindor Rules, everybody Drools subtext I wasn't so fond of.
I can picture nobody better equiped to "Marry a Muggle" and make it work in way that didn't lessen her positive aspects. Like Andromeda, it must also have been an Incredible Journey.

All the Best,

Lunatic

Trixa

June 21st, 2009, 2:28 pm

I would expect a 19 year old be more mature than a 15/16 year old because of that.

You'd think so but no. :lol:

Not just this thread - were you around for the great "platonic" debate?
Don't think so. I don't remember that one.

Seriously though, Bellatrix was being specific to Molly - your children, when mummy's gone. Arthur wasn't part of that threat. So it comes across to me that Molly is referring to everyone.
It's possible though I wouldn't say that Molly ahs ever showed any particular affection to children other than her own except Harry. So that's why I ahve a hard time seeing her as a protectress of all children.
To be honest, I don't see Bellatrix as particularly keen on hurting children either. She strikes me as someone who prefers to duel competent wizards not teenagers or children so that's why I thought it must have been Ginny and Hermione who attacked her and not the other way around. The only character I see who preys on children is Greyback. I agree with you that Bellatrix isn't maternal but she doesn't seem that keen on hurting children.

So if you remove the whole situation with Voldemort, then you have Harry visiting his best friend over the holidays - and vice versa. Ginny and Harry would still have gotten to know each other and, because they were so compatible, they would most likely have fallen in love with each other regardless.

We will never know. The thing is that Ginny's main reason for loving Harry seems to be his hero-like nature. That's what she says at the end of HBP. She loves him because he wouldn't rest until Voldemort is defeated= for being a hero. And that is also why she fancied him when she was eleven. I don't see any development in their relationship or at least not any believable one. Ginny becomes hot and popular and he is suddenly attracted to her. Her personality doesn't play such a large part in his crush for her. They basically become compatible after her drastic change.

Voldemort also enjoyed torturing people - he could have used legillimency to get information without torturing them. The only factor there was if the person knew occlumency and could block him - in which case, torture would be a last resort rather than the first option chosen.
Voldemort seemed like a cold person to me, not like someone who would take pleasure in hurting people. He did it in a pragmatic manner and because he felt it was necessary.

Bellatrix did die for Voldemort.
Yes and no. She did die but she didn't sacrifice herself. She didn't enter the battle knowing she would be killed. She knew it was a risk but based on her power and ability she didn't think she would be defeated. It's not like what Harry did when he went to his death willingly. I don't believe Bellatrix would have done something like that for Voldemort.

What she said to Narcissa demonstrated that she saw that as an honor. She thought Narcissa should be proud as she was proud of Draco for being willing to die for Voldemort.

There was a risk that he would die but that doesn't mean he was sacrificing himself for Voldemort. Bellatrix thought Narcissa should be honoured that her child had been chosen for such an important mission.

Voldemort expressed anger that his last, best lieutenant had been killed - not a romantic attachment. Voldemort wasn't capable of being in a relationship like that - not even with Bellatrix's warped version of love. He was a loner because he didn't trust anyone and would never have allowed anyone to get that close to him.

Voldemort had no reason to feel regret at having lost a good follower since Bellatrix had failed him grossly and that cost him one of his Horcruxes. He wasn't at all happy with her and he doesn't forgive easily. So his regret would have been more personal than professional, IMO. And he obviosuly did trust her as he gave her one of his Horcuxes.

That makes a distinction in their actions. Bellatrix isn't going to toy around with a spell that makes a person's boogers turn into bats and flap around their head. She's not going to waste time knocking someone down and leaving them so they can be healed and be up and around in a few minutes. She's going to immediately go for pain and severe injury and/or death. She's not going to leave someone with minor injuries - she's going to "play" with them until they're dead or insane. She's out to cause pain and hurt people as much as she can because she enjoys it.

I don't think Bellatrix tortured anyone when she was fifteen. I see similarities between Bella and Ginny becasue I think they only tunred out differently because of the way they were raised. I don't think for example, that Hermione would have turned evil ahd she been raised by the Blacks because her personality seems for calm and peaceful than Ginny's. Some people are more prone to violence than others, that's what I mean. Ginny's display of violence was juvenile, yes, but she showed that she had a temper which she couldn't always control.

But we see that he is capable of that.
When?

I didn't get that at all. I would agree that Cho defined the aspects of Harry's "type" in terms of appearance - athletic, long shiny hair, etc... - but not in terms of personality. Harry was attracted to Cho because she was pretty and they had Quidditch in common. But when they actually got to go out on a date, that was it - they had nothing else. Once they'd exhausted the subject of Quidditch, neither of them could think of anything else to talk about. It was awkward and uncomfortable for both of them. Cho crying over Cedric all the time put Cedric in between them as well - leaving Harry to compete with a dead man for her affections. And that was really all she ever wanted to talk about with Harry - how Cedric died, did he say anything about her, etc... That relationship was doomed from the start because they were not compatible at all.

Ron and Hermione don't have much in common either. I always thought Harry's main problem with Cho was that she wasn't over Cedric yet. That's why Ginny was so much better. She had all of Cho's qualities and none of her flaws.

The only thing Ginny has in common with Cho is that they both played Quidditch and had long, shiny hair. Their personalities were completely opposite. Harry and Ginny had no problems in finding things to talk about - he enjoyed walking back to the castle with her after practices and it wasn't awkward or stilted.
Harry and Ginny don't seem to talk much at all actually. Ginny attmepts to share something with Harry at the end of HBP but he simply gets up and walks away. Another wonderful H/G moment.

Molly put her children at risk when she told Dumbledore that he could count on her and Arthur at the end of GOF. She knew then that she and/or Arthur could die and they would be left alone. She knew then that Voldemort or his Death Eaters could come after her family simply because they were in the Order and fighting against him. She knew what the dangers were, but she joined anyway.

Yes she did and that was very admirable but her motivation for doing that was mainly the future of her children and her attachment to Harry.

I think that would have limited Molly being able to join the Order completely. Even standing guard over something would potentially result in her fighting and who was going to watch 6 kids - all under the age of 10 and fairly rambunctious boys - while she and Arthur fought with the Order? It's one thing to ask Sirius or another Order member to keep an eye on teenagers who can fend for themselves in terms of using the bathroom, getting to bed, getting something to eat, etc... Quite another to ask someone to babysit 6 kids that will need someone to change diapers, wipe them, bathe them, cook for them, etc... I think that was a practical decision at that time - and fear for their safety would have been even greater at those ages because none of them had even gotten a wand yet, let alone learned anything about defensive spells.
Ok.

They have a good, healthy relationship. We don't get all the details of them getting back together and building that relationship, but we see the end result.
I would have wanted to see Harry and Ginny develop a deeper connection to each other in the book so that their getting married and having children would be more believable. In the books, they are mainly lusting after one another and no more than that. I know they are just teenagers but that's the thing, people underestimate teenagers, I think. A teenage boy can love his girlfriend as much as an adult man so not all teenage relationships are based on hormones. I wouldn't have minded JKR making them even a bit unrealistiscally fond of each other since it would have foreshadowed their happy marriage after the war.

But isn't this true of every good sider in the book? We see Harry throwing hardened snowballs at Draco from under his cloak, jumping into a brawl and physically fighting, humiliating Filch - twice - surrounded by a group of lauging students while he hexed him; pulling 'unknown' curses out of a book marked for enemies to use, crucioing Carrow, hexing for fun with Goyles "alarmingly rapid growth of his toe nails" - and more. If raised distinctly, with that streak encouraged and directed at a particular group, then things may have gone downhill very fast for him also. Do the same with Ron - or young Sirius, Hermione (relative to her punching Draco in the nose; confunding Cormac; sending a flock of birds at Ron, etc.) young James, Lupin (in wolf form), Kingsley/Moody/Tonks (in their sometimes necessarily violent efforts in fighting evil) - etc., etc., you turn the behavior of any of these individuals toward evil doings and you get a Bella, or young Draco/Snape, or Rockwell, Carrow, Yaxley, Lucius. That is true for everyone in the series, imo.

Harry has more reason to have some pent up anger in him than Ginny, IMO since she was raised in a loving home with loving parents not abused. Hermione does act violently sometimes but she doesn't seem to enjoy it as much as Ginny. Sirius, same as with Harry, has a lot of anger in him mostly because of his family. As for James,... I know you're going to get upset again bu I never saw him as a particularly good person. His attacks on Snape, "because he exists" seem downright malicious. Also, James has been compared to Ginny as well by the fans.

EDIT: Thank you, Lunatic for saying what I should have said from the beginning. :)

wickedwickedboy

June 22nd, 2009, 6:15 am

Finally a post I can post without getting deep into a huge conversation.

Well they are both the female characters who are closest to the male principles on either side, and if your not particularly a Ginny fan you can see alot of parallells.

I'm not particularly a fan - and I don't see many parallels, that is why I was asking. :)

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy
obsessed unrequited love

2) Certainly describes Ginny in the first two books.

A 9-10 year old with obsessed unrequited love? I respect your view, but we are on different wavelengths went it comes to how we view these things, imo. So I guess we'd have to agree to disagree.

Harry has more reason to have some pent up anger in him than Ginny, IMO since she was raised in a loving home with loving parents not abused. Hermione does act violently sometimes but she doesn't seem to enjoy it as much as Ginny. Sirius, same as with Harry, has a lot of anger in him mostly because of his family. As for James,... I know you're going to get upset again bu I never saw him as a particularly good person. His attacks on Snape, "because he exists" seem downright malicious. Also, James has been compared to Ginny as well by the fans.

Why would I get upset? :lol:. I may disagree, but I never get upset (unless someone suggests werewolves should be put down in the wizard world :grumble:).

I think of myself as being completely logical when I hear these types of things. I agree Ginny was raised in a loving home with loving parents - as were the twins (which I think you lump in the same category as Ginny in this regard) - but so was Ron - which you haven't mentioned - but he could pull a few rabbits out of a hat in the same way as his siblings. My point is that logically, JKR simply wrote all of these kids acting as kids do in the real world - giving range to nearly all of their characters at various points in the series, imo. Ginny didn't seem to be enjoying her altercation with either Blaise or Hermione on Harry's behalf - and I think if JKR wanted to show that she got pleasure out of behaving in a violent manner, she would have added words like 'malicious, snide, sneering' as she did for Pansy for example - and Bella, even better example. So that is why I question the premise here. The twins too were shown to have a 'fun loving' attitude, and were not written as to indicate that their pranks bought more than the enjoyment JKR herself indicated she enjoyed when young (something she wanted in Harry's character and displayed more broadly in the pranks of the twins and marauders). She also included Hermione, because not all people find pranking funny and Hermione allowed for that viewpoint as well (I'd say Percy was another). Logically, I didn't think that Zach was deriving enjoyment from molesting Ginny, he was just being youthful - and I saw her retaliation in kind, not enjoyment, just retaliation (and I do note that Zach's role is ignored here as if it has no significance in the scenario with Ginny). They were not particular enemies, imo, like Harry and Draco, whose antics were described with more heat and ferocity, imo.

With James it was the same - she could have added all her normal malicious and sneering, terms, but she didn't. Instead of nastily saying "because he exists" she had him pull an aristotle stance to indicate a humorous fake philosophical rendering - the scratching of the head as if serious contemplation was occurring and such, imo. And I also am wary in this particular circumstance because Sirius, who behaved the same or in a worse manner, is typically ignored in these comparisons and examples - I'm sorry, but in my honest opinion, when I see that happening, I sincerely feel that people simply have a dislike for James and highlight his actions based on that reason. Sirius made the personal degrading comment about the greasy hair dripping - yet the focus is on "because he exists"? I can't explain that focus to myself in a logical manner. Sirius also tossed out the two debilitating freezing spells which disabled Snape from fighting back, but this is completely disregarded and I am unsure why (obiviously Harry was focused on his dad, Lily and James on one another, Snape on James - for obvious reasons - but the reader has no reason to ignore anyone or anything going on, imo.) So that is why you will see me take up defense, not because either Ginny or James are particular favorites of mine, although I like both, but rather because I feel the pinpointing of certain events is unfairly rendered. How, for instance, is what Ginny did to Zach any worse than what Zach did to Ginny? Guys picking on girls is per se worrisome to me, but Zach here is ignored in favor of Ginny's retaliation.

So all of that said, perhaps it becomes a little clearer why I question comparisons between characters like Bella and Ginny. To me, they are so distinct, I truly see little value in comparing them. And if the comparisons include things like Ginny being obsessed with unrequited love at 9 or 10 years old in order to make the comparison - then I feel I cannot really discuss the issue logically, because I truly to not believe a child can be obsessed with unrequited love at that age. I mean I get that little kids seem obsessed with their kindergarten buddies and such with their little first crushes and so on, but it is not in any way comparable to what Bella felt for Voldemort and her behavior therewith, imo. So that kind of thing just pretty much makes the comparison way too far fetched for me - actually a bit farcical when you consider it is a comparison between a mature adult - with a totally developed role and a completely green behind the ears child whose role in the series is just starting out. So, I would have to just agree to disagree.

stumps101

June 22nd, 2009, 7:09 am

Don't mind me, just butting in to answer the questions ...

1. Favourite over-all character?

Ginny. She's a normal, fun loving, athletic, confident, strong, witty, loyal, warm girl who was able to get past all the darkness she endured when she was young.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

Dark - I really like Bellatrix and Umbridge. They go after they want and they are rather fascinating to me. I'd love to know what made them to be the nasty and sadistic women that they are :whistle:
Light - Ginny and McGonnagall - she's strong, intelligent and witty.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

All of them really but especially the 4 above and the following: Andromeda, Lily, Hermione and Luna. For the latter two especially, I'd like to know more - I know I am supposed to like them but I can't really and I think knowing more about them would help for that a bit. With both, I feel like I never really got to know them. Especially with Luna, for me, it was like there's a character that's supposed to balance out the other 5 and that's it; it's like something's missing there that makes her interesting. It would be nice to have her developed a bit as well.

Oh and Fleur - I really liked seeing that she's not just a condescending person in HBP and given that she was a Triwizard champion, I don't feel like we got to see enough of what makes her .. her.
I don't think Bellatrix tortured anyone when she was fifteen. I see similarities between Bella and Ginny becasue I think they only tunred out differently because of the way they were raised. I don't think for example, that Hermione would have turned evil ahd she been raised by the Blacks because her personality seems for calm and peaceful than Ginny's. Some people are more prone to violence than others, that's what I mean. Ginny's display of violence was juvenile, yes, but she showed that she had a temper which she couldn't always control.

Funnily enough, I can totally reason for a Hermione being evil if she been raised by the Blacks scenario. Not a Bellatrix version two of course but IMO, she does have a very passive aggressive, often violent with an intent to harm personality and there are already so many similarities between her and Umbridge - I think had Hermione not made friends with Ron and Harry, she could have possibly turned out like Umbridge.

Yoana

June 22nd, 2009, 9:31 am

Funnily enough, I can totally reason for a Hermione being evil if she been raised by the Blacks scenario. Not a Bellatrix version two of course but IMO, she does have a very passive aggressive, often violent with an intent to harm personality and there are already so many similarities between her and Umbridge - I think had Hermione not made friends with Ron and Harry, she could have possibly turned out like Umbridge.

I think giving all the credit for everything good Hermione has in her or has ever done to Ron and and Harry is incredibly unfair. I also don't think it is reasonably supported by the text. She was shown to be sensitive and compassionate even before she made friends with Ron and Harry, and in matters completely unrelated to her friendship with them, even in matters where they were indifferent or disapproved (like house elves). When we meet her, she's trying to help Neville find his toad. In book 3, when both Ron and Harry were cross with her over a freaking broom, Hermione was the only person kind enough to tirelessly help Hagrid with the Buckbeak proceedings, even though she had more schoolwork than they did and was under enormous stress, and devoid of their emotional support and company. Would you attribute this kindness on her part to their influence, too? Would you say she wouldn't have helped Hagrid if she hadn't made friends with them? What about her continued friendship with both of them in year 4, when they weren't speaking to each other? What about her ongoing friendship and help for Neville? What about her unwavering decision to go on the Horcrux hunt even though it meant risking her life and devoiding her parents of theirs? Are these things Umbridge would do? Are these all things Hermione wouldn't even contemplate if she hadn't been so much altered by her friendship with Ron and Harry?

And could you please provide examples of Hermione being passive aggressive which are out of the ordinary for any normal person placed in the same situation?

Pearl_Took

June 22nd, 2009, 12:05 pm

To be honest, I don't see Bellatrix as particularly keen on hurting children either. She strikes me as someone who prefers to duel competent wizards not teenagers or children so that's why I thought it must have been Ginny and Hermione who attacked her and not the other way around. The only character I see who preys on children is Greyback. I agree with you that Bellatrix isn't maternal but she doesn't seem that keen on hurting children.

Er, Bella in OotP -- in the scene where the DA members are surrounded and captured by the Death Eaters -- takes enormous relish in the prospect of torturing Ginny. :huh: In fact, it is Bella's sadism, and her passionate nature, which IMO make her a more interesting and believable villain than Voldemort (as I posted on her thread :) ).

I don't think Bellatrix tortured anyone when she was fifteen. I see similarities between Bella and Ginny becasue I think they only tunred out differently because of the way they were raised. I don't think for example, that Hermione would have turned evil ahd she been raised by the Blacks because her personality seems for calm and peaceful than Ginny's. Some people are more prone to violence than others, that's what I mean. Ginny's display of violence was juvenile, yes, but she showed that she had a temper which she couldn't always control.

So did Hermione. :cool: And I don't think there is any realistic comparison between Hermione and Ginny (who both behave badly on occasion, and are normal teenage girls who can sometimes be a bit mean!) and Bella. Bella is a genuine sadist. That is what makes her frightening, and unhinged, and why she convinces me as a villain.

Funnily enough, I can totally reason for a Hermione being evil if she been raised by the Blacks scenario. Not a Bellatrix version two of course but IMO, she does have a very passive aggressive, often violent with an intent to harm personality and there are already so many similarities between her and Umbridge - I think had Hermione not made friends with Ron and Harry, she could have possibly turned out like Umbridge.

I've already answered this in the Hermione thread. :) I see no comparison between Hermione, who for all her flaws has a compassionate heart, and Umbridge, at all. :cool:

MC2456

June 22nd, 2009, 12:40 pm

Pearl_Took

June 22nd, 2009, 12:48 pm

Does anyone else think that Ginny Weasley is quite a Mary-Sue? I mean, she's witty, smart, pretty, athletic, strong (physically, mentally AND emotionally)... She doesn't has a single flaw in her. Even Tonks has her clumbsiness and her impulsive character. Though, this is all in my humble opinion.

According to many reactions in the fandom I've seen, both Ginny and Hermione vie for the Mary Sue award. :lol: Jo has admitted that she identifies a lot with Hermione, I believe, so Hermione could be seen as an 'alter ego', in a way. However, I do think she is a believable and well-drawn character.

I can see plenty of flaws in Ginny (and Hermione too), actually. I don't dislike the character, just have a few issues with how she (and the romance) is portrayed.

MC2456

June 22nd, 2009, 12:50 pm

So did Hermione. :cool: And I don't think there is any realistic comparison between Hermione and Ginny (who both behave badly on occasion, and are normal teenage girls who can sometimes be a bit mean!) and Bella. Bella is a genuine sadist. That is what makes her frightening, and unhinged, and why she convinces me as a villain.

I've already answered this in the Hermione thread. :) I see no comparison between Hermione, who for all her flaws has a compassionate heart, and Umbridge, at all. :cool:

Yeah, Bellatrix is truly a sadist. :lol: I'd say she's the white sheep of the Black family-the golden child who is proud of her pure-blood status, and also who would, in Voldemort's words, 'prune' her family tree, keeping it free from Muggle borns, Muggles and 'half-breeds'. She has a sick mind, but it's because of that I'm really interested in reading her everytime. It's time we needed a strong, evil, female character. (Victoria of Twilight doesn't count)

I agree with you. Hermione is a girl who uses her intelligence to support rightful causes like the liberation of house-elves (SPEW anyone?). She's her heart in the right place. Umbridge, on the other hand, is plain freaky.

Trixa

June 22nd, 2009, 1:11 pm

Er, Bella in OotP -- in the scene where the DA members are surrounded and captured by the Death Eaters -- takes enormous relish in the prospect of torturing Ginny.
I didn't see it that way. Sure, she has no problem with torturing Ginny but she seemed to me to want to get things done and she probably saw torture as the way to do that.

So did Hermione. And I don't think there is any realistic comparison between Hermione and Ginny (who both behave badly on occasion, and are normal teenage girls who can sometimes be a bit mean!) and Bella. Bella is a genuine sadist. That is what makes her frightening, and unhinged, and why she convinces me as a villain.

Again, Ginny doesn't have to be evil to be comparable with Bellatrix just like Harry isn't evil yet he and Voldemort have some things in common. Hermione may act rash sometimes but her compassionate side far outweighs her dark side. I would compare Hermione to Minerva McGonagall rather than to Bellatrix or Umbridge. Not because she is a good person but because of her intellectual nature.

So that is why you will see me take up defense, not because either Ginny or James are particular favorites of mine, although I like both, but rather because I feel the pinpointing of certain events is unfairly rendered. How, for instance, is what Ginny did to Zach any worse than what Zach did to Ginny? Guys picking on girls is per se worrisome to me, but Zach here is ignored in favor of Ginny's retaliation.

Zack never hexed Ginny nor smashed his broom in her. While I agree that almost all the HP characters show a temper and a less than acceptable behaviour most of them aren't proud of that. Ginny is smug about her hexing Zack when Harry meets her in Slughorn's room. She also finds it funny to humiliate Ron both in front of a girl he admires and his best friend. Ginny seems to have a chip on her shoulder that she has no reason to have, IMO.
But really, the reason why I see a parallel between her and Bellatrix is because they both show interest in the most important male characters of the series: Harry and Voldemort. The way they show this affection is quite similar as well.

To me, they are so distinct, I truly see little value in comparing them. And if the comparisons include things like Ginny being obsessed with unrequited love at 9 or 10 years old in order to make the comparison - then I feel I cannot really discuss the issue logically, because I truly to not believe a child can be obsessed with unrequited love at that age. I mean I get that little kids seem obsessed with their kindergarten buddies and such with their little first crushes and so on, but it is not in any way comparable to what Bella felt for Voldemort and her behavior therewith, imo. So that kind of thing just pretty much makes the comparison way too far fetched for me - actually a bit farcical when you consider it is a comparison between a mature adult - with a totally developed role and a completely green behind the ears child whose role in the series is just starting out. So, I would have to just agree to disagree.
I would not describe Ginny as obsessed either but you have to admit that she was pretty persistent in her crush on Harry, a boy she hardly knew, after all. She attempts to get over him and never quite succeeds in doing so. Just like Bella got married to a Rodolphus but her "love" for Voldemort never faded.

wickedwickedboy

June 22nd, 2009, 4:01 pm

Zack never hexed Ginny nor smashed his broom in her. While I agree that almost all the HP characters show a temper and a less than acceptable behaviour most of them aren't proud of that. Ginny is smug about her hexing Zack when Harry meets her in Slughorn's room. She also finds it funny to humiliate Ron both in front of a girl he admires and his best friend. Ginny seems to have a chip on her shoulder that she has no reason to have, IMO.

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you. But I find the idea that Ginny has a chip on her shoulder that she has "no reason to have" - a little troublesome because the text tells us that Zach was bothering Ginny. It provided a reason. Why are you leaving that out? And also, Ginny didn't just start humiliating Ron before Harry - Ron interrupted her with Dean and then basically accused her of being loose - despite his being her boyfriend (and before Dean). She got angry and the two had their sister/brother confrontation. So again, Ginny was not acting without reason there. Why do you feel Ginny had "no reason"?

But really, the reason why I see a parallel between her and Bellatrix is because they both show interest in the most important male characters of the series: Harry and Voldemort. The way they show this affection is quite similar as well.

I suppose I don't see Bella as "Voldy's girl" - so perhaps that is why this type of thing never crossed my mind.

I would not describe Ginny as obsessed either but you have to admit that she was pretty persistent in her crush on Harry, a boy she hardly knew, after all. She attempts to get over him and never quite succeeds in doing so. Just like Bella got married to a Rodolphus but her "love" for Voldemort never faded.

Well we just see it distinctly I guess. I just saw Ginny's behavior as that of a cute kid, whose feelings for Harry increased from crush to love over time. Bella's behavior wasn't cute to me.

MC2456

June 22nd, 2009, 4:08 pm

According to many reactions in the fandom I've seen, both Ginny and Hermione vie for the Mary Sue award. :lol: Jo has admitted that she identifies a lot with Hermione, I believe, so Hermione could be seen as an 'alter ego', in a way. However, I do think she is a believable and well-drawn character.

I can see plenty of flaws in Ginny (and Hermione too), actually. I don't dislike the character, just have a few issues with how she (and the romance) is portrayed.

Hermione is way better than Ginny, in my opinion. I've always loved her eagerness to learn and her keen wit. She's so passionate about things, she's the Lilly Moscovitz of the Harry Potter series. (though, way more prettier)

meesha1971

June 23rd, 2009, 6:06 am

Don't think so. I don't remember that one.

Ahh, well the great platonic debate started after Jo said in an interview promoting GOF that Harry and Hermione were only platonic friends. There were a lot of people trying to find a way to turn that around to Jo saying they were actually in love rather than just platonic friends.

It's possible though I wouldn't say that Molly ahs ever showed any particular affection to children other than her own except Harry. So that's why I ahve a hard time seeing her as a protectress of all children.

Molly always struck me as being very similar to McGonagall in that respect. Both shared the view that children/teenagers should be protected and kept out of danger.

Molly also took Hermione into her home and showed her a lot of affection as well. That actually stood out to me more than her allowing Harry to stay with them because Hermione was Ron's female best friend. Allowing his male best friend to stay at their home for weeks really isn't a big deal - they can share a room, etc... Having his female best friend come to stay was a more complicated situation because Hermione couldn't stay in Ron's room like Harry did. I liked that Jo included Hermione in the stays at the Burrow for GOF and OOTP because it showed that Molly wasn't just making an exception for Harry. Her reasons for allowing them to stay stemmed from them both living in the muggle world and needing a place to stay in the wizarding world for things like the World Cup - or when they were in danger and needed extra protection as in OOTP. She was willing to stretch her meager budget to take these two kids in for weeks at a time - as well as sending them presents and including them for the holidays.

To be honest, I don't see Bellatrix as particularly keen on hurting children either. She strikes me as someone who prefers to duel competent wizards not teenagers or children so that's why I thought it must have been Ginny and Hermione who attacked her and not the other way around. The only character I see who preys on children is Greyback. I agree with you that Bellatrix isn't maternal but she doesn't seem that keen on hurting children.

Bellatrix was the type of person who didn't care as long as she got the chance to hurt someone, IMO. She relished the idea of torturing Ginny in OOTP and her pleasure in torturing Neville to try to get Harry to hand over the prophecy was evident, IMO. And she was quite keen on teaching Harry how to "properly" do the Cruciatus curse by using it on him.

I think it would be more likely that Bellatrix went after one of them and the other two jumped in to help.

We will never know. The thing is that Ginny's main reason for loving Harry seems to be his hero-like nature. That's what she says at the end of HBP. She loves him because he wouldn't rest until Voldemort is defeated= for being a hero. And that is also why she fancied him when she was eleven. I don't see any development in their relationship or at least not any believable one. Ginny becomes hot and popular and he is suddenly attracted to her. Her personality doesn't play such a large part in his crush for her. They basically become compatible after her drastic change.

Actually, she said "maybe that's why I like you so much" - which for me comes to why she admires him as a person. His nature was who he was and the fact that it made him a hero is irrelevant, IMO. His nature would be the same regardless of Voldemort being a threat because that's just who he was - he inherited those traits from his parents.

Ginny never changed all that much. She was a feisty little firebrand when we first see her in PS/SS. Harry doesn't see that because she was shy around him, but we are shown that was not Ginny's actual personality because everyone else pointing out how unusual it was for her to behave that way and even Harry noted that she had her own friends at Hogwarts from GOF on so I don't see where her having friends and being liked would even be an issue. When she started being herself around Harry, he realized how much he liked her. He could talk to her, they had a similar sense of humor, he enjoyed spending time with her. Even before he realized that his feelings had changed, he was choosing to spend more time with Ginny. Harry wasn't the one thinking about Ginny in terms of how she looked - other people commented on her being pretty - Harry's thoughts were about her sense of humor, how he could talk to her, and enjoying spending time with her.

Voldemort seemed like a cold person to me, not like someone who would take pleasure in hurting people. He did it in a pragmatic manner and because he felt it was necessary.

Except that it wasn't always necessary. He enjoyed hurting people as well - which was demonstrated through Harry learning about how he tormented and frightened the other orphans at the orphanage.

Yes and no. She did die but she didn't sacrifice herself. She didn't enter the battle knowing she would be killed. She knew it was a risk but based on her power and ability she didn't think she would be defeated. It's not like what Harry did when he went to his death willingly. I don't believe Bellatrix would have done something like that for Voldemort.

I have no trouble believing that with how she behaved around Voldemort. She would have done anything he asked of her. If he'd told her to leap off the Astronomy tower into a patch of screaming Mandrakes, she would have thanked him and done so with a smile on her face, IMO.

There was a risk that he would die but that doesn't mean he was sacrificing himself for Voldemort. Bellatrix thought Narcissa should be honoured that her child had been chosen for such an important mission.

Actually, Snape had confirmed that Voldemort wanted Draco to die in that mission as punishment for Lucius' failures. He was angry at Lucius and insisted that Draco make the attempt first because he believed that he would be killed in the attempt. Narcissa knew that and the odds of Draco being able to duel Dumbledore and survive - as they saw it - were slim to none. Voldemort couldn't kill Dumbledore himself - how could Draco? Draco would have been rewarded if he'd managed to succeed, but Voldemort never believed he would. Draco was a sacrifice to punish Lucius - they all understood that. Bellatrix was proud of that and felt that Narcissa should be too.

Voldemort had no reason to feel regret at having lost a good follower since Bellatrix had failed him grossly and that cost him one of his Horcruxes. He wasn't at all happy with her and he doesn't forgive easily. So his regret would have been more personal than professional, IMO. And he obviosuly did trust her as he gave her one of his Horcuxes.

He didn't tell her what it was - same as with Lucius and the diary. His trust was very limited. Bellatrix was only a tool like the other Death Eaters - but he did consider her and Snape the best of them, IMO. Neither of them had ever failed him - from his perspective. The cup was stolen from Bellatrix's vault, but Bellatrix wasn't to blame for that - the goblins were. Voldemort blamed Lucius entirely for the fiasco at the DoM - as well as his attempt to use the diary for his own personal gain with the end result of it being destroyed. Voldemort knew that Bellatrix would do whatever he asked - that's why he charged her with killing Tonks. He knew she'd do it without blinking. If he'd asked her to torture and kill Narcissa, she'd have done so without pause merely because he asked her to. That's why he considered her his "best lieutenant".

I don't think Bellatrix tortured anyone when she was fifteen. I see similarities between Bella and Ginny becasue I think they only tunred out differently because of the way they were raised. I don't think for example, that Hermione would have turned evil ahd she been raised by the Blacks because her personality seems for calm and peaceful than Ginny's. Some people are more prone to violence than others, that's what I mean. Ginny's display of violence was juvenile, yes, but she showed that she had a temper which she couldn't always control.

The Prince's Tale in DH establishes that the "Future Death Eaters of Britain" were practicing their torture techniques on other students while they were at Hogwarts, IMO. Mulciber and Avery wouldn't have been the only ones doing that. Bellatrix had been part of that gang as well - Sirius pointed that out to Harry in GOF.

How they were raised has nothing to do with that sort of thing, IMO. Voldemort wasn't taught to torture people. He was born with violent tendencies. I'd say the same for Bellatrix. Such deviances become evident in childhood - children like that typically start off practicing such things on insects and progress to small animals and eventually move their way to people. Bellatrix would have enjoyed causing other people pain regardless of how she was raised because that is a trait that is genetic. There's been a lot of research done in genetics regarding ways to remove such violent tendencies before a child is even born.

I would have to say that Hermione demonstrated a much higher level of violence than Ginny. Ginny hit people with a spell that made their boogers flap around their head - that was her "specialty". It's gross, but not violent. The only thing she does that would even qualify as remotely violent was flying into Smith after the Quidditch match, IMO. She had a temper, but she didn't always resort to violence when she got angry - the majority of the time, she's going to go for the Bat Bogey Hex.

Hermione, on the other hand, did quite a few things that were violent when she lost her temper. She slapped Malfoy and threatened to curse him when he laughed at Hagrid. She jinxed the parchment the DA signed so that Marietta was permanently disfigured with SNEAK across her forehead. She led Umbridge into the forest with the plan of having the Centaurs deal with her - knowing that the Centaurs could very well kill her since they had threatened to kill Hagrid earlier. She sent birds after Ron to peck and scratch him.

Of course, I don't fault Hermione for all of that - the jinx on the DA parchment crossed a line, but I wouldn't say that showed evil tendencies - just a lack of judgement. She demonstrates some similar traits to Umbridge, but has better morals on the whole. The rest of it was due to her losing her temper when provoked and reacting emotionally. She had a mean streak and could react violently when provoked, but I wouldn't say that she would end up evil any more than I would Ginny. However, calm and peaceful are definitely not adjectives I would apply when describing Hermione. :lol:

When?

Harry was a very compassionate person. When others were hurting, he had sympathy for them and wished he could do something about it. He didn't always know what to do or how to handle such situations, but he wanted to. He tried to offer comfort to Cho, but it was awkward because he didn't know how. He tried to offer comfort to Hermione later as well, but it was awkward because he didn't know what to do or say to her. He didn't really understand either of them well enough to know what to say to make them feel better so it was very awkward for him.

That's something that you get better at as you get older. I don't think Harry will ever be completely comfortable in such situations - few people are - but as he gets older he would learn to be better at handling such things.

Ron and Hermione don't have much in common either. I always thought Harry's main problem with Cho was that she wasn't over Cedric yet. That's why Ginny was so much better. She had all of Cho's qualities and none of her flaws.

Ron and Hermione had quite a bit in common actually. They were never at a loss for conversation and enjoyed spending time together even when Harry wasn't around. They didn't always agree about what they were talking about, but they also loved to argue and debate things so that works for them. They even argued when they did agree sometimes. :lol:

The only quality that Ginny had in common with Cho was that they both liked Quidditch. Apart from that one thing, they were as different as night and day. Cho was more of a "girly girl" and Ginny was a tomboy. Cho was clingy and possessive - being jealous that Harry was friends with Hermione. Ginny was not and never had any problem with Harry being friends with Hermione.

Harry's relationship with Cho fell apart for a lot of reasons. The fact that she was not over Cedric yet and kept putting Cedric between them was only one of them. What was established there - as well as in GOF - was that Harry was attracted to the "athletic" type, but somewhat annoyed by "girly girls" like Parvatti, Lavender, Cho, etc...

Harry and Ginny don't seem to talk much at all actually. Ginny attmepts to share something with Harry at the end of HBP but he simply gets up and walks away. Another wonderful H/G moment.

I think that's being too harsh on Harry to be honest. He wasn't good boyfriend material at that time, but what guy would be under those circumstances? Over those three years he had learned that he was part of a prophecy that he believed meant he would have to kill or be killed, he's got one of the most powerful Dark Wizards ever personally targeting him and people he cares about because of that prophecy, he watched three people get murdered and felt it was because of him, he's been given the mission of finding and destroying Horcruxes and he has no idea how long that will take or if he will even survive - and he's got facing Voldemort to look forward to if he does. At that point, he was planning on leave everyone he cared behind - including Ron and Hermione - to face all of that by himself. He wasn't good boyfriend material because the circumstances he was facing wouldn't allow him to be. He couldn't have a normal life until Voldemort was gone. That was the whole point of that.

We can't judge how Harry would handle a relationship in the future on the basis of that because the circumstances would be entirely different. Once Voldemort was gone, he could focus on what was important to him personally rather than what he saw as a duty he had to perform. He could just hang out with his friends to play Quidditch or have fun. He could spend time with his girlfriend talking or even just kissing if they wanted to. He wouldn't have to worry if Ginny, Ron, Hermione, or anyone else he cared about would be hurt because someone was trying to get to him to kill him. Once Voldemort was gone, he could have a normal life and be a normal guy.

But Harry and Ginny did talk quite a bit actually. Jo just described such things rather than writing out dialog - she primarily used dialog to further the plot so the bulk of the dialog is in regards to whatever the current mystery is. Harry just tells us about other things. For example -

Yet Harry could not help himself talking to Ginny, laughing with her, walking back from practice with her

Yes she did and that was very admirable but her motivation for doing that was mainly the future of her children and her attachment to Harry.

Like I said before, that is a very big assumption that is not supported by the text at all, IMO.

In fact, I would say just the oppositve because - if that assumption were true - then Molly would never have joined the Order at all.

I would have wanted to see Harry and Ginny develop a deeper connection to each other in the book so that their getting married and having children would be more believable. In the books, they are mainly lusting after one another and no more than that. I know they are just teenagers but that's the thing, people underestimate teenagers, I think. A teenage boy can love his girlfriend as much as an adult man so not all teenage relationships are based on hormones. I wouldn't have minded JKR making them even a bit unrealistiscally fond of each other since it would have foreshadowed their happy marriage after the war.

If Harry Potter were a romance novel, I might agree with you. But it wasn't. The story wasn't about Harry building his relationship with Ginny - that was something that developed peripherally because the point of it was to show that Harry could not have any kind of a normal life until Voldemort was gone. They date for a few weeks in HBP to give Harry a taste of what he could have if Voldemort was not an issue, but they couldn't really be together as long as Voldemort was around.

That was the only significant of Harry's romance throughout the series - the fact that he couldn't have a genuine relationship as long as Voldemort was out there. In terms of the construct of the story, Jo could have left Ginny off page entirely throughout the entire series and simply showed that she and Harry were married at the end. Ginny could have been some random girl he met during those 19 years after Voldemort was defeated and the end result is the same because how his relationship developed was never the point.

Harry has more reason to have some pent up anger in him than Ginny, IMO since she was raised in a loving home with loving parents not abused. Hermione does act violently sometimes but she doesn't seem to enjoy it as much as Ginny. Sirius, same as with Harry, has a lot of anger in him mostly because of his family. As for James,... I know you're going to get upset again bu I never saw him as a particularly good person. His attacks on Snape, "because he exists" seem downright malicious. Also, James has been compared to Ginny as well by the fans.

People don't get angry just because they have pent up issues. Most of the time they get angry because of what's currently happening and they react in the heat of the moment. That's normal behavior, IMO. People lose their tempers and react. Ginny is no different than anyone else in that regard, IMO.

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you. But I find the idea that Ginny has a chip on her shoulder that she has "no reason to have" - a little troublesome because the text tells us that Zach was bothering Ginny. It provided a reason. Why are you leaving that out? And also, Ginny didn't just start humiliating Ron before Harry - Ron interrupted her with Dean and then basically accused her of being loose - despite his being her boyfriend (and before Dean). She got angry and the two had their sister/brother confrontation. So again, Ginny was not acting without reason there. Why do you feel Ginny had "no reason"?

I agree. I wouldn't say that Ginny losing her temper because someone - who had been shown to be very antagonistic - wouldn't leave her alone is indicative of her having a "chip on her shoulder". Zacharias was characterized as someone who drive Mother Theresa around the bend. :lol:

The situation with Ron has a lot to do with the fact that they're siblings as well. Siblings do that kind of stuff to each other all the time. Sibling rivalry has always existed and always will, IMO. My mother is one of six kids - you should hear the stories they tell about things they did to each other growing up. :wow: At the time, things like that made them mad and they argued, but now they laugh about them hysterically. Both Ron and Ginny behaved badly in that situation, but they also made up and Ginny was right there by his bedside when he got poisoned - along with the twins who also tormented Ron quite a bit. They teased each other and argued because they were siblings, but they were also there for each other and loved each other.

Well we just see it distinctly I guess. I just saw Ginny's behavior as that of a cute kid, whose feelings for Harry increased from crush to love over time. Bella's behavior wasn't cute to me.

Exactly. :agree:

Trixa

June 23rd, 2009, 2:42 pm

Ahh, well the great platonic debate started after Jo said in an interview promoting GOF that Harry and Hermione were only platonic friends. There were a lot of people trying to find a way to turn that around to Jo saying they were actually in love rather than just platonic friends.

Oh, well I wasn’t part of the fandom until after OotP so I didn’t know about that one. How does one make platonic mean romantic, though?

Bellatrix was the type of person who didn't care as long as she got the chance to hurt someone, IMO. She relished the idea of torturing Ginny in OOTP and her pleasure in torturing Neville to try to get Harry to hand over the prophecy was evident, IMO. And she was quite keen on teaching Harry how to "properly" do the Cruciatus curse by using it on him.
I think it would be more likely that Bellatrix went after one of them and the other two jumped in to help.
I don’t think that Bellatrix would go after some girl while Voldemort was fighting three competent wizards. In OotP, she never attacks Harry even though he has the Prophecy. After she’s done with Tonks she goes to find another adult to fight with. Bellatrix had no qualms about torturing or killing children but neither did any other Death Eater. In order to make her an anti mother and someone who preys on children you would need more than that.

Actually, she said "maybe that's why I like you so much" - which for me comes to why she admires him as a person. His nature was who he was and the fact that it made him a hero is irrelevant, IMO. His nature would be the same regardless of Voldemort being a threat because that's just who he was - he inherited those traits from his parents.

So after she knows him for about five years the only reason she can think of for why she likes is the same reason for why she liked him even before they met? It seems to be. Not much development there. Even if there are other things about him that she admires his being a hero seems to be the main one.

Ginny never changed all that much. She was a feisty little firebrand when we first see her in PS/SS. Harry doesn't see that because she was shy around him, but we are shown that was not Ginny's actual personality because everyone else pointing out how unusual it was for her to behave that way and even Harry noted that she had her own friends at Hogwarts from GOF on so I don't see where her having friends and being liked would even be an issue. When she started being herself around Harry, he realized how much he liked her. He could talk to her, they had a similar sense of humor, he enjoyed spending time with her. Even before he realized that his feelings had changed, he was choosing to spend more time with Ginny. Harry wasn't the one thinking about Ginny in terms of how she looked - other people commented on her being pretty - Harry's thoughts were about her sense of humor, how he could talk to her, and enjoying spending time with her.

Ginny did change. In the first four books she was a teenage girl just like any other if maybe a bit shy. In OotP her transformation had already begun and by HBP she was the prom queen. Ron says that Ginny usually never shuts up. However being talkative with your family doesn’t necessarily mean you will be popular at school. Ginny’s only friend seems to have been Tom Riddle’s diary. Her looks changed as well. She went from average looking to very hot. It is believable that an average looking 11 year old can turn into a pretty 15 year old but the fact that she becomes pretty right before Harry starts being romantically interested in her sends the wrong message. Harry does think of her looks and notices them. He makes comments about her hair or about the way she kisses him. His chest monster is probably meant to symbolize his physical attraction to her.

I have no trouble believing that with how she behaved around Voldemort. She would have done anything he asked of her. If he'd told her to leap off the Astronomy tower into a patch of screaming Mandrakes, she would have thanked him and done so with a smile on her face, IMO.
Bellatrix? You mean the woman who wouldn’t even lend Voldemort her wand?

He didn't tell her what it was - same as with Lucius and the diary. His trust was very limited. Bellatrix was only a tool like the other Death Eaters - but he did consider her and Snape the best of them, IMO. Neither of them had ever failed him - from his perspective. The cup was stolen from Bellatrix's vault, but Bellatrix wasn't to blame for that - the goblins were. Voldemort blamed Lucius entirely for the fiasco at the DoM - as well as his attempt to use the diary for his own personal gain with the end result of it being destroyed. Voldemort knew that Bellatrix would do whatever he asked - that's why he charged her with killing Tonks. He knew she'd do it without blinking. If he'd asked her to torture and kill Narcissa, she'd have done so without pause merely because he asked her to. That's why he considered her his "best lieutenant".

Actually Voldemort makes a comment about how it was “Malfoy’s and Bellatrix’s stupidity” that cost him one of his Horcruxes. So it is clear to me that he does blame her. With all this in mind it would be ridiculous for him to feel sorry for losing a follower who failed him anyway. Also, Nagini was arguably more valuable to him than Bellatrix yet there was no emotional scene when Neville killed her.

I would have to say that Hermione demonstrated a much higher level of violence than Ginny. Ginny hit people with a spell that made their boogers flap around their head - that was her "specialty". It's gross, but not violent. The only thing she does that would even qualify as remotely violent was flying into Smith after the Quidditch match, IMO. She had a temper, but she didn't always resort to violence when she got angry - the majority of the time, she's going to go for the Bat Bogey Hex.

Hermione, on the other hand, did quite a few things that were violent when she lost her temper. She slapped Malfoy and threatened to curse him when he laughed at Hagrid. She jinxed the parchment the DA signed so that Marietta was permanently disfigured with SNEAK across her forehead. She led Umbridge into the forest with the plan of having the Centaurs deal with her - knowing that the Centaurs could very well kill her since they had threatened to kill Hagrid earlier. She sent birds after Ron to peck and scratch him.

Hermione was under a lot of stress and finally cracked when she slapped Draco. The curse she put on the parchment was not directed at anyone in particular it was merely a punishment for a potential traitor. She never planned on killing Umbridge and she was in fact hoping Grawp would handle her. She had no choice: she had to get rid of Umbridge so that they could go and save Sirius. As I’ve said before, Hermione’s compassionate side outweighs her dark side and she never seems to think violence is cool or feel good about herself when she hurts someone.

Ron and Hermione had quite a bit in common actually. They were never at a loss for conversation and enjoyed spending time together even when Harry wasn't around. They didn't always agree about what they were talking about, but they also loved to argue and debate things so that works for them. They even argued when they did agree sometimes
They argue because they have nothing in common. Ron likes Quidditch, Hermione doesn’t. Hermione likes school, Ron doesn’t. The only thing they have in common is Harry.

The only quality that Ginny had in common with Cho was that they both liked Quidditch. Apart from that one thing, they were as different as night and day. Cho was more of a "girly girl" and Ginny was a tomboy. Cho was clingy and possessive - being jealous that Harry was friends with Hermione. Ginny was not and never had any problem with Harry being friends with Hermione
You are accusing Cho of being possessive yet Ginny’s jealous side surfaces more than once during the last three books. Cho and Ginny have a lot in common actually. Both pretty, popular and good Quidditch players.

I think that's being too harsh on Harry to be honest. He wasn't good boyfriend material at that time, but what guy would be under those circumstances? Over those three years he had learned that he was part of a prophecy that he believed meant he would have to kill or be killed, he's got one of the most powerful Dark Wizards ever personally targeting him and people he cares about because of that prophecy, he watched three people get murdered and felt it was because of him, he's been given the mission of finding and destroying Horcruxes and he has no idea how long that will take or if he will even survive - and he's got facing Voldemort to look forward to if he does. At that point, he was planning on leave everyone he cared behind - including Ron and Hermione - to face all of that by himself. He wasn't good boyfriend material because the circumstances he was facing wouldn't allow him to be. He couldn't have a normal life until Voldemort was gone. That was the whole point of that.

We can't judge how Harry would handle a relationship in the future on the basis of that because the circumstances would be entirely different. Once Voldemort was gone, he could focus on what was important to him personally rather than what he saw as a duty he had to perform. He could just hang out with his friends to play Quidditch or have fun. He could spend time with his girlfriend talking or even just kissing if they wanted to. He wouldn't have to worry if Ginny, Ron, Hermione, or anyone else he cared about would be hurt because someone was trying to get to him to kill him. Once Voldemort was gone, he could have a normal life and be a normal guy.

But Harry and Ginny did talk quite a bit actually. Jo just described such things rather than writing out dialog - she primarily used dialog to further the plot so the bulk of the dialog is in regards to whatever the current mystery is. Harry just tells us about other things. For example
Sure, she tells about how Harry and Ginny talk and how they connect but she never actually shows us. If Harry isn’t good bofriend material how can we expect him to be good husband material? He cannot deal with emotions or complicated stuff. He walks away from Ginny when she attempts to share something with him because he can’t handle it. Would anyone want a husband who is only interested in snogging and telling jokes? He likes to have fun with Ginny but does he like it when things get serious?

In fact, I would say just the oppositve because - if that assumption were true - then Molly would never have joined the Order at all.

Why not? Making the world a better place for your children is a strong motivation for any parent. She would be ptting herself in danger, of course, but she may think it’s worth it. It is the lesser of two evils as having the world ruled by Voldemort wouldn’t be so good either. And it would land them in even greater danger.

If Harry Potter were a romance novel, I might agree with you. But it wasn't. The story wasn't about Harry building his relationship with Ginny - that was something that developed peripherally because the point of it was to show that Harry could not have any kind of a normal life until Voldemort was gone. They date for a few weeks in HBP to give Harry a taste of what he could have if Voldemort was not an issue, but they couldn't really be together as long as Voldemort was around.

That was the only significant of Harry's romance throughout the series - the fact that he couldn't have a genuine relationship as long as Voldemort was out there. In terms of the construct of the story, Jo could have left Ginny off page entirely throughout the entire series and simply showed that she and Harry were married at the end. Ginny could have been some random girl he met during those 19 years after Voldemort was defeated and the end result is the same because how his relationship developed was never the point.

If you’re going to include romance in your book then you have the duty to write it properly and make it believable. JKR can write romance. She has proven that she can by writing other relationships. Harry and Ginny’s romance doesn’t get enough development for them to be believable as a married couple with children, IMO. They never even say those three words to each other and Harry doesn’t think of Ginny when DD asks him if she wants to return or to go on being dead. I didn’t expect more romantic scenes, I would rather have those romantic scenes we did get but written differently. Let Harry and Ginny develop a deeper connection to each other. The books aren’t just about Harry and Voldemort as these two characters are part of an entire magical world, along with many other characters. This is actually what makes the books so interesting and enjoyable: the fact that there are so many subplots and interesting characters which matter to the reader (and to their author) just as much as the two main protagonists matter.

Well we just see it distinctly I guess. I just saw Ginny's behavior as that of a cute kid, whose feelings for Harry increased from crush to love over time. Bella's behavior wasn't cute to me.

In my opinion, Ginny and Bellatrix’s romances with Harry and Voldemort are something that could be used to draw a parallel between them, more so than Ginny’s temper. Ginny and Bellatrix seem to be the only female characters in the books who actually have a sexuality. Ginny with her relentless snogging and Bellatrix with her longing for closeness and her speaking to Voldemort “as if to a lover”. A very feminist scene from the books is the one in which Ginny stands up to Ron and defends her right to date and snog whomever she wants (even though she humiliates Ron). Just because she is a girl it doesn’t mean she shouldn’t get to have physical realtionships, even though they probably didn’t go further than kissing. She is apalled when Ron almost calls her easy.
Bellatrix is also a woman who feels and expresses physical attraction to a man. In fact, the protrayal of her affection towards Voldemort is the closest JKR ever comes to describing intimacy. The other couples we see in the HP universe seem to lack intimacy and are only focused on being parents. If you read JKR’s intrepretation of the Molly vs Bella duel you would see that she focuses in fact not on the motherhood aspect as much as on the way these two characters express their love. She calls Bellatrix’s love perverse and twisted while Molly’s love is pure. This interpretation of the duel is problematic for two reasons. First, you cannot compare the love a person has for their children with the love for a partner as they are entirely different. Second, seeing as how Bella’s love was portrayed and how much of a factor physical attraction has been in that love, the message the duel sends is that it is wrong for a woman to “desire” a man. It is “perverse.” At least that’s how I interpreted what she said.

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you. But I find the idea that Ginny has a chip on her shoulder that she has "no reason to have" - a little troublesome because the text tells us that Zach was bothering Ginny. It provided a reason. Why are you leaving that out? And also, Ginny didn't just start humiliating Ron before Harry - Ron interrupted her with Dean and then basically accused her of being loose - despite his being her boyfriend (and before Dean). She got angry and the two had their sister/brother confrontation. So again, Ginny was not acting without reason there. Why do you feel Ginny had "no reason"?
The chip has nothing to do with Zack, it merely influences her behaviour then. Ginny has the need to prove herself, to prove that she is somehow worthy although I'm not entirely sure of what. I think she feels that of she shows people she can take care of herself (and this sometimes includes her being violent towards thsoe who upset her) they would trust her more and stop wanting to protect her all the time.

FaceofBoe

June 23rd, 2009, 3:12 pm

So after she knows him for about five years the only reason she can think of for why she likes is the same reason for why she liked him even before they met? It seems to be. Not much development there. Even if there are other things about him that she admires his being a hero seems to be the main one.

No, there is a subtle but important difference. In the early books she fancies the famous Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived. It's his name that she has a crush on. But by HBP, what she likes about him is that the fact that he makes a choice to be a hero. So by HBP, she's fallen for Harry the person, not Harry the image.

Ginny did change. In the first four books she was a teenage girl just like any other if maybe a bit shy.

Only around Harry. There's no evidence she's shy around anyone else.

Ron says that Ginny usually never shuts up. However being talkative with your family doesn’t necessarily mean you will be popular at school.

No, but I don't think anybody is claiming it does. It merely establishes that Harry is the only person Ginny is shy around, and so we don't see the real Ginny - the Ginny everyone else sees - until OotP, when she stops being shy around him.

Her looks changed as well. She went from average looking to very hot.

Where does it say she was "average looking"? Harry just didn't notice.

It is believable that an average looking 11 year old can turn into a pretty 15 year old but the fact that she becomes pretty right before Harry starts being romantically interested in her sends the wrong message. Harry does think of her looks and notices them. He makes comments about her hair or about the way she kisses him. His chest monster is probably meant to symbolize his physical attraction to her.

It doesn't send the wrong message, because physical attraction is an important part of a romantic relationship. Not the most important part, but vital nonetheless.

Plus, there's no indication that Harry is attracted to her because of her appearance. The first pangs of romance he feels are on the Hogwarts express, when she goes to sit with Dean - he's annoyed, and he'd even forgotten, after all their time during the summer, that she didn't hang around with them at school. So Harry's first feelings for Ginny come from the fact that he misses her company, not that he suddenly realises she is physically attractive. In fact, there is no such moment of realisation. The physical aspect is generally downplayed by JKR, though of course, is still present (as it has to be).

The curse she put on the parchment was not directed at anyone in particular it was merely a punishment for a potential traitor.

And that makes it right?

She never planned on killing Umbridge and she was in fact hoping Grawp would handle her.

Yes, because Grawp was cuddly and safe at that point.

She had no choice: she had to get rid of Umbridge so that they could go and save Sirius.

By leading her to likely death, though?

As I’ve said before, Hermione’s compassionate side outweighs her dark side and she never seems to think violence is cool or feel good about herself when she hurts someone.

True enough. That doesn't excuse some of her more questionable actions, though.

They argue because they have nothing in common. Ron likes Quidditch, Hermione doesn’t. Hermione likes school, Ron doesn’t. The only thing they have in common is Harry.

And the only thing Harry and Hermione have in common is Ron.

Seriously, though - couples work in different ways. Some are brought together by mutual interest and similar personalities (Harry and Ginny), and some are brought together by a spark of chemistry, and an ability to balance each other out. And that's what Ron and Hermione have. Both insecure people, who learn to support each other and prop each other up.

You are accusing Cho of being possessive yet Ginny’s jealous side surfaces more than once during the last three books. Cho and Ginny have a lot in common actually. Both pretty, popular and good Quidditch players.

On a very base, surface level, they have a few things in common, but no more than most characters do if you pick-and-choose their traits. Their personalities are fundamentally different, and none of the things you mention are personality traits.

Sure, she tells about how Harry and Ginny talk and how they connect but she never actually shows us. If Harry isn’t good bofriend material how can we expect him to be good husband material? He cannot deal with emotions or complicated stuff. He walks away from Ginny when she attempts to share something with him because he can’t handle it.

He does? Where was that? If you mean at the end of the funeral, the conversation was over. Harry had asserted his feelings for Ginny, she'd asserted her feelings for him, and they'd broken up without much conflict.

Would anyone want a husband who is only interested in snogging and telling jokes? He likes to have fun with Ginny but does he like it when things get serious?

I'm not sure what you mean by "when things get serious". He certainly seems sad at the thought, in DH, that he can't ever marry Ginny.

The Voldemort issue is a seperate thing. He doesn't want Ginny killed, it's as simple as that. Ginny dying is, DH implies quite strongly, the thing that would break him, and he makes every effort to ensure she's OK. That, to me, indicates that he's interested in more than snogging and telling jokes. :whistle:

If you’re going to include romance in your book then you have the duty to write it properly and make it believable. JKR can write romance. She has proven that she can by writing other relationships. Harry and Ginny’s romance doesn’t get enough development for them to be believable as a married couple with children, IMO. They never even say those three words to each other and Harry doesn’t think of Ginny when DD asks him if she wants to return or to go on being dead.

Ron and Hermione never say "I love you", either. You don't need to write those words for the meaning to be clear. She's the last thing he thinks of when he's about to die - that's a pretty strong indication of how much he does love her. And he doesn't think of any of the characters when given the choice to go back, because the choice is to go back and save everyone. That's more heroic.

I didn’t expect more romantic scenes, I would rather have those romantic scenes we did get but written differently. Let Harry and Ginny develop a deeper connection to each other.

And yet I felt the connection between them was pretty clear. I'd have been horrified had JKR descended to Twilight-style mawkishness.

In my opinion, Ginny and Bellatrix’s romances with Harry and Voldemort are something that could be used to draw a parallel between them, more so than Ginny’s temper.

Bellatrix is obsessed with Voldemort, yet Ginny loves Harry enough to accept his decision to break up with her, without trying to make things difficult and without ignoring him and trying to tag along. They seem to be fundementally different, to me.

Ginny and Bellatrix seem to be the only female characters in the books who actually have a sexuality.

What about Hermione under the mistletoe with McLaggen? Lavender with her snogging of Ron? Tonks, with her pregnancy?

The other couples we see in the HP universe seem to lack intimacy and are only focused on being parents.

Mollywobbles!

If you read JKR’s intrepretation of the Molly vs Bella duel you would see that she focuses in fact not on the motherhood aspect as much as on the way these two characters express their love. She calls Bellatrix’s love perverse and twisted while Molly’s love is pure. This interpretation of the duel is problematic for two reasons. First, you cannot compare the love a person has for their children with the love for a partner as they are entirely different. Second, seeing as how Bella’s love was portrayed and how much of a factor physical attraction has been in that love, the message the duel sends is that it is wrong for a woman to “desire” a man. It is “perverse.” At least that’s how I interpreted what she said.

The difference being that Bellatrix lets her obsession with Voldemort overwhelm her life, to the point that she loses her morality, and does terrible things to please him. Again, a fundamental difference with Ginny, who loves Harry enough to step back, and let go.

Ginny has the need to prove herself, to prove that she is somehow worthy although I'm not entirely sure of what. I think she feels that of she shows people she can take care of herself (and this sometimes includes her being violent towards thsoe who upset her) they would trust her more and stop wanting to protect her all the time.

That's possible. She's certainly sick of people telling her she's "too young" for things, which happens constantly. Still, she proves herself in the end by being, as far as we know, the youngest survivor of the battle of Hogwarts, and the only underage witch/wizard to make it.

Yoana

June 23rd, 2009, 3:41 pm

What about Hermione under the mistletoe with McLaggen? Lavender with her snogging of Ron? Tonks, with her pregnancy?

Getting pregnant is no sign of sexuality, it's just a sign that you have properly working reproductive organs and have had sex. Many women get pregnant while hating sex. There's a termendous difference between sex and sexuality (as an individual quality).

Hermione was forced to make out with McLaggen. I don't see how this says anything about her sexuality at all!

I agree about Lavender, up to a point. She did seem to enjoy snogging Ron, but we never really get an insight into her point of view.

I think we get to see a bit of this respect in Fleur - when she's feeding Bill off her fork. I think that was a pointedly sensual moment in which Fleur is the actant, and I do see it as a demonstration of her sexuality, albeit a very brief one. I also consider the "Mollywobbles" line a glimpse into Molly's intimate life.

Sheree

June 23rd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Trixa

June 23rd, 2009, 5:10 pm

No, there is a subtle but important difference. In the early books she fancies the famous Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived. It's his name that she has a crush on. But by HBP, what she likes about him is that the fact that he makes a choice to be a hero.
The end result is the same: Harry is a hero.

True enough. That doesn't excuse some of her more questionable actions, though.
No it does not. Hermione sent Umbridge into the forest knowing something bad would happen to her but she ahd no choice. Umbridge had a chance of escpaing with her life but Sirius didn't. Hermione was cruel by placing such a curse on the parchment but it's not the same thing as hexing Marietta personally. Hermione doesn't strike me as the kind of person who thinks violence is cool.

And the only thing Harry and Hermione have in common is Ron.
Right. But they never got married.

I'm not sure what you mean by "when things get serious". He certainly seems sad at the thought, in DH, that he can't ever marry Ginny.

He didn't seem too sad when he made that "it's not like I'll marry her" comment.

Mollywobbles!

Yes, but that was very innocent. Some Voldemort/Bella moments are not so family friendly.

Ginny was not always shy.
We are not shown Ginny being popular during any of the first four books.

This seems to be a bit of a misnomer. Once again, using my personal life - I like to cook and to go shopping and I like school. My boyfriend doesn't enjoy any of those things in the slightest, and prefers playing video games, being on the computer, or playing with his cats (I'm also a dog person). However, what we do have in common are our values, and that's something that I think Ron and Hermione also share. It is absolutely possible to love someone and to have a successful relationship with someone who, on the surface, you appear to have little in common with.
What values do Ron and Hermione share? She wants to free house elves, he has no such interest. They are both anti-Voldemort but that's about it. Don't get me wrong, I like them both individually and as a couple but they don't have much in common.

Sheree

June 24th, 2009, 2:23 am

We are not shown Ginny being popular during any of the first four books.

What values do Ron and Hermione share? She wants to free house elves, he has no such interest. They are both anti-Voldemort but that's about it. Don't get me wrong, I like them both individually and as a couple but they don't have much in common.

I didn't say Ginny was popular. I just said that she never seems to be very shy.

As for Ron and Hermione, they have a lot of values that they share - they both value family, albeit in different ways. They both value their friendships, and yes, they both want Voldemort gone. Though they both falter at different times (just like real people do), they both value bravery and loyalty and honesty.

meesha1971

June 24th, 2009, 4:47 am

Oh, well I wasn’t part of the fandom until after OotP so I didn’t know about that one. How does one make platonic mean romantic, though?

Well, that was the problem - they couldn't. They certainly tried though. :lol:

I don’t think that Bellatrix would go after some girl while Voldemort was fighting three competent wizards. In OotP, she never attacks Harry even though he has the Prophecy. After she’s done with Tonks she goes to find another adult to fight with. Bellatrix had no qualms about torturing or killing children but neither did any other Death Eater. In order to make her an anti mother and someone who preys on children you would need more than that.

Actually, Bellatrix did attack Harry when he had the prophecy. Lucius had to physically stop her and deflect the curse she sent at Harry to prevent the prophecy from being smashed. And Sirius confronted Bellatrix after she had knocked Tonks out. Where Bellatrix stood out in that respect was that she relished the opportunity to torture and kill children - much like Greyback did. And, by her own admission, would have been perfectly willing to sacrifice her own child to Voldemort and proud to be given the opportunity.

So after she knows him for about five years the only reason she can think of for why she likes is the same reason for why she liked him even before they met? It seems to be. Not much development there. Even if there are other things about him that she admires his being a hero seems to be the main one.

She doesn't admire the fact that he is a hero. She admires the qualities that make him a hero. There is a significant difference there. At the age of 11, he wasn't a person to her - he was an image. A famous name she'd grown up hearing. By HBP, he is not just an image to her and a large part of who Harry is as a person is due to the qualities that made him a hero.

Ron and Hermione admired Harry for the same reasons, but nobody questions the validity of their friendship. That's just who Harry was.

Ginny did change. In the first four books she was a teenage girl just like any other if maybe a bit shy. In OotP her transformation had already begun and by HBP she was the prom queen. Ron says that Ginny usually never shuts up. However being talkative with your family doesn’t necessarily mean you will be popular at school. Ginny’s only friend seems to have been Tom Riddle’s diary. Her looks changed as well. She went from average looking to very hot. It is believable that an average looking 11 year old can turn into a pretty 15 year old but the fact that she becomes pretty right before Harry starts being romantically interested in her sends the wrong message. Harry does think of her looks and notices them. He makes comments about her hair or about the way she kisses him. His chest monster is probably meant to symbolize his physical attraction to her.

Ginny never changed to that degree. Harry's perception of her changed as she started being herself around him and his feelings for her developed. There is a difference. She was never shy around anyone else - only Harry. And even that eases as the series progresses so she's talking to him more by GOF and even able to stand up to him and Ron in Hermione's defense. She was always fiesty and talkative and got along well with other people. Harry wasn't able to see that until she started being herself around him.

Her appearance was never altered - she was always described as having the flaming red hair of all the Weasleys, freckles, and pale skin. Harry always used positive descriptors regarding Ginny - even in COS he describes her face as "glowing like the setting sun" when she blushes rather than just saying her face was red or she turned pink as he did with others. But Harry never focused on Ginny's appearance as a reason why he liked her or wanted to spend time with her - that was always about her personality and enjoying her company. Sure, he was attracted to her - that's normal and I would expect a 16 year old boy to be physically attracted to a girl he is romantically interested in. I think it would have been very strange for Harry to want to date Ginny, but not be physically attracted as well.

Attraction is a matter of perception and that is what we see with Harry realizing his attraction to Ginny. He slotted her in his mind as Ron's little sister and never gave it much thought - though we see many subconscious indicators that he was attracted all along. If we had access to Ron's thoughts, we would see a similar progression regarding Hermione. Harry didn't find Hermione attractive, but Ron did. And because he found her attractive, he expected others to find her attractive to and worried that someone else would come along and snatch her up. It's the same for Harry once he realized his attraction for Ginny - he expects everyone to see Ginny the same as he does and worries that some other boy will rush in and snatch her up before he gets the chance. But we can see in the text that Harry is being silly about all that and his fears are unfounded. Ginny is fairly well liked among her peers, but it was hardly like people were genuflecting whenever she walked into a room and boys were not beating down the Fat Lady's portrait to try and get to her in Gryffindor tower or following her around everywhere she went swearing their undying adoration. That was just Harry worrying needlessly - which is completely normal, IMO. It wasn't that Ginny suddenly became pretty and suddenly Harry noticed her. She looked as she always did. The only thing that changed was Harry's perception - not Ginny herself.

Ginny's first year at Hogwarts was marred by the experience with the diary. That is not an accurate reflection of who she is because she was being influenced and controlled by someone else for the bulk of the year - and that started before she went to Hogwarts because she got the diary when they went to Diagon Alley and had already been using it. After COS, Harry notes that Ginny has other friends and comments on how she leaves them to go sit with her friends when they arrive at Hogwarts. He notices who she hangs around with - and it's hardly a depiction of a prom queen surrounded by a gaggle of admirers, IMO. She hangs around with Michael - when they were dating - and then Dean. She hangs around with Luna and sometimes Neville. She hangs around with the trio sometimes. And she has fun with the Quidditch team during practices. People liked her because she was nice and had a good sense of humor. I don't see where that would be a crime to be honest.

Bellatrix? You mean the woman who wouldn’t even lend Voldemort her wand?

Voldemort never asked Bellatrix for her wand. I have no doubt that she would have handed it over in a second and thanked him for considering her wand worthy of his glorious touch if he had. ;)

Actually Voldemort makes a comment about how it was “Malfoy’s and Bellatrix’s stupidity” that cost him one of his Horcruxes. So it is clear to me that he does blame her. With all this in mind it would be ridiculous for him to feel sorry for losing a follower who failed him anyway. Also, Nagini was arguably more valuable to him than Bellatrix yet there was no emotional scene when Neville killed her.

He still trusted her to do his bidding and considered her and Snape the best of the Death Eaters - though I would agree that's not saying much when you look at the other Death Eaters. :lol:

I would agree that Nagini was more important to him - she was his last Horcrux after all. But his reaction to Nagini being killed was equal to his reaction at Bellatrix being killed - it was just covered by the chaos that erupted around them when that happened. Harry noted that Voldemort was screaming in fury when Nagini was killed and nobody could hear him because the giants were fighting, the Centaurs were charging, and hundreds of people were swarming over the walls onto the grounds to join the battle.

Hermione was under a lot of stress and finally cracked when she slapped Draco.

Hermione was provoked and lost her temper - I agree. The same applies to Ginny with Smith. Neither acted without provocation, but both behaviors were equally bad, IMO.

The curse she put on the parchment was not directed at anyone in particular it was merely a punishment for a potential traitor.

Which only makes that choice worse, IMO. She made herself judge and jury for some unknown person without considering all of the angles or even letting anyone know what she had done - not even Harry and Ron. They all signed that parchment with no idea what would happen to them if they told. What if Ron had been taken to Umgridge's office and forced to tell under Veritaserum? He would have been unfairly branded for life for something he had no control over. In this case, Hermione acted without provocation and her actions demonstrate a vindictive side to her.

She never planned on killing Umbridge and she was in fact hoping Grawp would handle her. She had no choice: she had to get rid of Umbridge so that they could go and save Sirius.

Actually, Hermione was depending on the Centaurs to take care of Umbridge - not Grawp. She was crashing through the forest and making all of that noise deliberately to draw the attention of the Centaurs. She knew that they would come out and confront them because they had done so earlier when Hagrid took them to Grawp. She knew that they would very likely kill Umbridge because they had threatened to kill Hagrid and had only let him go because he was with them and they didn't hurt the young. She expected the Centaurs to deal with Umbridge and let her and Harry go because they had done so before because they were underage. I wouldn't say that she planned to kill Umbridge specifically, but she did know good and well that it was very likely that Umbridge would be killed.

And she did have options. It wasn't necessary for her to lead Umbridge to the Centaurs like that. She could have made her way through the forest quietly and led Umbridge to where Grawp was - restrained as far as they knew and took advantage of the predictable shock Umbridge would have at seeing a giant in the forest and overpowered her. She could have given Harry a signal for them both to rush Umbridge as soon as they got into the cover of the forest - despite what Umbridge claimed, it was possible for two teenagers to overpower her. The options were limited, but knowingly leading Umbridge into a potentially lethal situation wasn't necessary, IMO.

And let's not forget when she chose to trap Rita Skeeter in an unbreakable jar in beetle form, kept her there for several days, and blackmailed her for a year - as opposed to reporting her being an illegal animagus to the proper authorities.

As I’ve said before, Hermione’s compassionate side outweighs her dark side and she never seems to think violence is cool or feel good about herself when she hurts someone.

I agree that Hermione is compassionate the majority of the time. I would also say the same holds true with Ginny for the same reasons. If one can still consider Hermione compassionate and forgive her lapses in judgment when she loses her temper, why can't that same forgiveness be applied to Ginny when her infractions were far less than Hermione's? I mean, we've got six or seven times where Hermione snaps and does something violent and/or cruel, but only two for Ginny and yet it is Ginny who most often gets raked over the coals. I have never understood why so many people apply this double standard when it comes to Hermione and Ginny.

They argue because they have nothing in common. Ron likes Quidditch, Hermione doesn’t. Hermione likes school, Ron doesn’t. The only thing they have in common is Harry.

Actually, they only had three major arguments over the course of the series. The rest of the time they were just bickering/debating and they both enjoyed that and did it even when they agreed about something. Ron was more into Quidditch, but Hermione liked the game too - she enjoyed being a spectator and got into the spirit of it from that aspect. They both enjoyed playing chess. They both enjoyed solving a mystery. They approached some issues from different angles, but their views weren't always that far apart - i.e. Ron trying to get Hermione to understand she was handling the whole SPEW thing the wrong way because she wasn't showing respect to the house-elves. Their personalities were very similar - though certainly not exactly alike. You don't have to agree with someone all the time to be romantically compatible - actually, I would find that kind of relationship extremely dull and boring myself.

You are accusing Cho of being possessive yet Ginny’s jealous side surfaces more than once during the last three books. Cho and Ginny have a lot in common actually. Both pretty, popular and good Quidditch players.

Ginny demonstrates jealousy twice - and only one of those times was it really an issue and then there were valid reasons for her to be worried about Cho. Cho freaked out twice over the fact that Harry was friends with Hermione - something that would have always been an issue because Harry wasn't the type of person to chuck his friends just because some girl couldn't handle the fact that one of them was female.

The only thing Cho and Ginny really had in common was that they both played Quidditch. Popularity is not a personality trait and had nothing to do with why Harry was attracted to either of them. Pretty would apply to a lot of girls and that would be subjective anyway - what one person considers pretty, another would not. Those are superficial things that do not apply, IMO. Harry didn't fall in love with Ginny because she was popular. He fell in love with her because they had a lot in common, they enjoyed each others company, they had a similar sense of humor, and they understood each other very well. That just didn't happen with his relationship with Cho.

Sure, she tells about how Harry and Ginny talk and how they connect but she never actually shows us. If Harry isn’t good bofriend material how can we expect him to be good husband material? He cannot deal with emotions or complicated stuff. He walks away from Ginny when she attempts to share something with him because he can’t handle it. Would anyone want a husband who is only interested in snogging and telling jokes? He likes to have fun with Ginny but does he like it when things get serious?

Because the reason Harry was not good boyfriend material at that point in time was because he was the target of one of the most powerful Dark Wizards ever. The extenuating circumstances prevented him from being able to have a normal life. Those circumstances were not going to exist forever and they were gone at the end of DH. Once Voldemort was gone, Harry was good boyfriend material - and good husband material. Saying that Harry was only interested in snogging and telling jokes is a gross exaggeration that is not supported by the text, IMO. Those weren't the only things he was interested in - though they are both certainly necessary to a normal, healthy romantic relationship, IMO.

I think Harry proved over the course of the series that he could handle serious situations as well as having fun - his entire life had been that way from the time Voldemort killed his parents. He is more introverted about dealing with that kind of thing, but a lot of people are - they manage to have happy relationships anyway. The fact that he was awkward in dealing with emotional displays as a teenager is not an accurate reflection of how he will handle such situations in the future - particularly once Voldemort was gone and he could have a normal life. Even in normal circumstances that is something people learn as they get older and more mature.

Why not? Making the world a better place for your children is a strong motivation for any parent. She would be ptting herself in danger, of course, but she may think it’s worth it. It is the lesser of two evils as having the world ruled by Voldemort wouldn’t be so good either. And it would land them in even greater danger.

If it was all about her children, then she wouldn't have put them in danger by joining the Order. She would have packed them up and headed for the hills - along with the other families who were high-tailing it out of Britain when Voldemort took over. It's not just about her kids - it was about the world in general as well.

If you’re going to include romance in your book then you have the duty to write it properly and make it believable. JKR can write romance. She has proven that she can by writing other relationships. Harry and Ginny’s romance doesn’t get enough development for them to be believable as a married couple with children, IMO. They never even say those three words to each other and Harry doesn’t think of Ginny when DD asks him if she wants to return or to go on being dead. I didn’t expect more romantic scenes, I would rather have those romantic scenes we did get but written differently. Let Harry and Ginny develop a deeper connection to each other. The books aren’t just about Harry and Voldemort as these two characters are part of an entire magical world, along with many other characters. This is actually what makes the books so interesting and enjoyable: the fact that there are so many subplots and interesting characters which matter to the reader (and to their author) just as much as the two main protagonists matter.

I have no problem in seeing Harry and Ginny as a married couple with children because the reasons they were compatible were so well demonstrated on page. I was actually surprised Jo put so much in there towards that because Harry's romance was never the primary romance of the story - it couldn't be due to the construct of the story. Ron and Hermione were the primary romance of the story. Harry's furture romantic prospects were peripheral to the main plot line of Harry vs. Voldemort. He was never going to get more than a brief interlude to show him what he could have once Voldemort was gone because it wouldn't have fit for him to have a normal life and have the fate of the wizarding world resting on his shoulders.

The two plot lines do not work in conjunction with each other because the hero either can't have a girlfriend until his destiny's been fulfilled or he can't have one at all because it will never be fulfilled. Marshall Dillon didn't date Miss Kitty because that would have detracted from the construct of the story. Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Frodo, Luke Skywalker - and so on and so forth - they don't get normal romances because they do not have normal lives. The hero might get the girl in the end - but not until the very end when the story is over. That's how it works. The hero has to be able to focus on whatever he has to do to save the world and having a girlfriend isn't part of that.

Harry vs. Voldemort wasn't the only significant aspect of the story as a whole, but it was the primary point of Harry's part of the story and he couldn't have any kind of a normal life until that was done - which was the end of the story. Adding subplots involving other characters enriched the story and made it more realistic and enjoyable, but that never changed the fact that those things were done with other characters because they couldn't be done with Harry.

In my opinion, Ginny and Bellatrix’s romances with Harry and Voldemort are something that could be used to draw a parallel between them, more so than Ginny’s temper. Ginny and Bellatrix seem to be the only female characters in the books who actually have a sexuality. Ginny with her relentless snogging and Bellatrix with her longing for closeness and her speaking to Voldemort “as if to a lover”. A very feminist scene from the books is the one in which Ginny stands up to Ron and defends her right to date and snog whomever she wants (even though she humiliates Ron). Just because she is a girl it doesn’t mean she shouldn’t get to have physical realtionships, even though they probably didn’t go further than kissing. She is apalled when Ron almost calls her easy.
Bellatrix is also a woman who feels and expresses physical attraction to a man. In fact, the protrayal of her affection towards Voldemort is the closest JKR ever comes to describing intimacy. The other couples we see in the HP universe seem to lack intimacy and are only focused on being parents. If you read JKR’s intrepretation of the Molly vs Bella duel you would see that she focuses in fact not on the motherhood aspect as much as on the way these two characters express their love. She calls Bellatrix’s love perverse and twisted while Molly’s love is pure. This interpretation of the duel is problematic for two reasons. First, you cannot compare the love a person has for their children with the love for a partner as they are entirely different. Second, seeing as how Bella’s love was portrayed and how much of a factor physical attraction has been in that love, the message the duel sends is that it is wrong for a woman to “desire” a man. It is “perverse.” At least that’s how I interpreted what she said.

:huh: I have no idea where you got that from. Who was comparing Molly's love for her kids to Bellatrix's twisted love for Voldemort? The parallel drawn was mother vs. anti-mother - not mother vs. Voldemort's paramour. That analogy doesn't make any sense, IMO.

What of Hermione throwing herself into Ron's arms and snogging him senseless? Lavender did that too. Cho pursued Harry and took him to a romantic location for their date hoping to entice him to kiss her - she messed it up by throwing Cedric in between them, but I think her intention in taking him there was pretty obvious. And Harry had all those other girls pursuing him in HBP - Romilda Van being the most persistent. Parvatti and Padma dump Harry and Ron at the Yule Ball and take up with two boys from Beauxbatons who pay more attention to them. Pansy was all but throwing herself at Draco on the train. And we have Molly blushing like a new bride when she has to say that Arthur calls her "Mollywobbles" in private and getting all dreamy as she reminisces to dancing with Arthur to “A Cauldron Full of Hot, Strong Love” - the lyrics of which definitely promote female sexuality, IMO.

Oh, come and stir my cauldron,
And if you do it right,
I’ll boil you up some hot strong love
To keep you warm tonight.

So I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at there. :hmm:

The chip has nothing to do with Zack, it merely influences her behaviour then. Ginny has the need to prove herself, to prove that she is somehow worthy although I'm not entirely sure of what. I think she feels that of she shows people she can take care of herself (and this sometimes includes her being violent towards thsoe who upset her) they would trust her more and stop wanting to protect her all the time.

Rebelling against the "baby sister" image her brothers projected on her does not indicate that Ginny has a chip on her shoulder, IMO. She's a 15 year old girl striving to get her family to realize that she is growing up and not a small child anymore.

Though I really don't see what that has to do with Ginny losing her temper on two occasions and reacting to provocation from Zacharias Smith. That had nothing to do with proving herself and everything to do with him making her mad.

He didn't seem too sad when he made that "it's not like I'll marry her" comment.

:huh: Not too sad?

“She’s not an idiot, she knows it can’t happen, she’s not expecting us to — to end up married, or —”

As he said it, a vivid picture formed in Harry’s mind of Ginny in a white dress, marrying a tall, faceless, and unpleasant stranger. In one spiraling moment it seemed to hit him: Her future was free and unencumbered, whereas his . . . he could see nothing but Voldemort ahead.

He seems very sad to me.

Yes, but that was very innocent. Some Voldemort/Bella moments are not so family friendly.

I wouldn't call "A Cauldron Full of Hot, Strong Love" all that innocent. :eyebrows:

I didn't say Ginny was popular. I just said that she never seems to be very shy.

As for Ron and Hermione, they have a lot of values that they share - they both value family, albeit in different ways. They both value their friendships, and yes, they both want Voldemort gone. Though they both falter at different times (just like real people do), they both value bravery and loyalty and honesty.

Exactly. :agree:

Trixa

June 24th, 2009, 10:21 am

Actually, Bellatrix did attack Harry when he had the prophecy.
Because he insulted Voldemort not because he was a kid.

And Sirius confronted Bellatrix after she had knocked Tonks out.
Bellatrix defeated Tonks then went where the others were fighting. Only then did Sirius come and fight her.

She doesn't admire the fact that he is a hero. She admires the qualities that make him a hero. There is a significant difference there.
I don't see much of a difference. She got to know him better, yes. But what stands out to her is the fact that he is a hero. I would say her love for his hero-status only increased with her getting to know him better as his defeat of Voldemort the first time was mostly his mother's doing anyway. Now she knows that he has the proper qualities of a hero.

Ginny never changed to that degree. Harry's perception of her changed as she started being herself around him and his feelings for her developed. There is a difference. She was never shy around anyone else - only Harry. And even that eases as the series progresses so she's talking to him more by GOF and even able to stand up to him and Ron in Hermione's defense. She was always fiesty and talkative and got along well with other people. Harry wasn't able to see that until she started being herself around him.

Maybe she was feisty and talkative but she was never popular nor pretty, nor a good Quidditch player. In fact, in GOf she is bored during the Quidditich match.

Her appearance was never altered - she was always described as having the flaming red hair of all the Weasleys, freckles, and pale skin. Harry always used positive descriptors regarding Ginny - even in COS he describes her face as "glowing like the setting sun" when she blushes rather than just saying her face was red or she turned pink as he did with others. But Harry never focused on Ginny's appearance as a reason why he liked her or wanted to spend time with her - that was always about her personality and enjoying her company. Sure, he was attracted to her - that's normal and I would expect a 16 year old boy to be physically attracted to a girl he is romantically interested in. I think it would have been very strange for Harry to want to date Ginny, but not be physically attracted as well.

It's not just Harry. Random boys start making comments about her lovely appearance at the beginning of HBP. That has nothing to do with Harry's POV as Harry cannot control what other people are saying.

Ginny's first year at Hogwarts was marred by the experience with the diary. That is not an accurate reflection of who she is because she was being influenced and controlled by someone else for the bulk of the year - and that started before she went to Hogwarts because she got the diary when they went to Diagon Alley and had already been using it.
Fair enough. But her social situation doesn't seem to change after the Diary either. She has neither boyfriends nor any friends until OotP.

And she has fun with the Quidditch team during practices. People liked her because she was nice and had a good sense of humor. I don't see where that would be a crime to be honest.

It's not. It just begs the question where this sense of humour came from.

Voldemort never asked Bellatrix for her wand. I have no doubt that she would have handed it over in a second and thanked him for considering her wand worthy of his glorious touch if he had.
He asked everyone who was sitting at the table in DH, which includes Bellatrix. No one offers theirs, which would include Bellatrix. If she can't even make a small sacrifice for him then how can we expect her to die for him?

I would agree that Nagini was more important to him - she was his last Horcrux after all. But his reaction to Nagini being killed was equal to his reaction at Bellatrix being killed - it was just covered by the chaos that erupted around them when that happened. Harry noted that Voldemort was screaming in fury when Nagini was killed and nobody could hear him because the giants were fighting, the Centaurs were charging, and hundreds of people were swarming over the walls onto the grounds to join the battle.
I was talking about how the scene was written. Voldemort's fury is described in detail when she dies. He blasts away his three powerful opponents whom he had been fighting for quite some time. The rage gives him the power to do that. You just don't do that for someone who is only your follower. Especially not if you're Voldemort who is self sufficient and independent.

I have never understood why so many people apply this double standard when it comes to Hermione and Ginny.

Because Hermione's compaasionate side outweighs her dark side. With Ginny whenever we see her she is either extremely jealous, violent, humiliating Ron, being smug about being violent or calling Fleur names. These are not exactly the best characteristics, IMO.

The only thing Cho and Ginny really had in common was that they both played Quidditch. Popularity is not a personality trait and had nothing to do with why Harry was attracted to either of them.
Popularity entails being likeable and having good social skills which are personality traits.

Harry didn't fall in love with Ginny because she was popular. He fell in love with her because they had a lot in common, they enjoyed each others company, they had a similar sense of humor, and they understood each other very well.

It's too bad he only realized those things when she became popular and pretty. At least that's what the book would have you believe. Her change of personality and Harry's crush for her happening at about the same time cannot be a coincidence.

Because the reason Harry was not good boyfriend material at that point in time was because he was the target of one of the most powerful Dark Wizards ever. The extenuating circumstances prevented him from being able to have a normal life. Those circumstances were not going to exist forever and they were gone at the end of DH.
So whenever there's something going on in the WW, Ginny would take second place in Harry's mind? Then she would have to be very understanding.
Besides, Harry isn't good boyfriend material when Voldemort is around but he is good friend material? He has disagreements with Ron and Hermione but he never treats them the way he treats Ginny.

If it was all about her children, then she wouldn't have put them in danger by joining the Order.
She didn't. It was their decision to join the Order and they would have done so even if she had left Britain.

Harry's furture romantic prospects were peripheral to the main plot line of Harry vs. Voldemort. He was never going to get more than a brief interlude to show him what he could have once Voldemort was gone because it wouldn't have fit for him to have a normal life and have the fate of the wizarding world resting on his shoulders.

Right. But as I've said before, my problem wasn't that we didn't get enough scene but rather how the scenes we got were written. I see nothing there to convince me that these two would be happily married one day. Harry likes Ginny's sense of humour and looks. Ginny likes Harry's hero status. All rather shallows reasons for being together, IMO.

I have no idea where you got that from. Who was comparing Molly's love for her kids to Bellatrix's twisted love for Voldemort?
Rowling was:

Yes in book seven she kills Bellatrix- she is the only woman on the good side who kills. I saw Molly and Bellatrix standing opposite of each other for a long time; two completely different characters, who each show a very feminine side of love. The pure and protecting love of Molly, and the obsessive, perverse of Bellatrix. Those two feminine types of energy against each other. That was very satisfying to write

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense but that was her interpretation.

What of Hermione throwing herself into Ron's arms and snogging him senseless? Lavender did that too. Cho pursued Harry and took him to a romantic location for their date hoping to entice him to kiss her - she messed it up by throwing Cedric in between them, but I think her intention in taking him there was pretty obvious. And Harry had all those other girls pursuing him in HBP - Romilda Van being the most persistent. Parvatti and Padma dump Harry and Ron at the Yule Ball and take up with two boys from Beauxbatons who pay more attention to them. Pansy was all but throwing herself at Draco on the train. And we have Molly blushing like a new bride when she has to say that Arthur calls her "Mollywobbles" in private and getting all dreamy as she reminisces to dancing with Arthur to “A Cauldron Full of Hot, Strong Love” - the lyrics of which definitely promote female sexuality, IMO.

None of the characters you mentioned act like Bellatrix acted around Voldemort. They want to snog yes but there's not much more to it than that. It's all rather childish but that's because they were so young at the time, of course. The fact that Molly listens to a song says nothing about her sexuality. She didn't write that song nor was she the one singing it. Molly's love is "pure".

Rebelling against the "baby sister" image her brothers projected on her does not indicate that Ginny has a chip on her shoulder, IMO. She's a 15 year old girl striving to get her family to realize that she is growing up and not a small child anymore.
That would be my definition of a chip on her shoulder. Always complaining that people treat her like a child and like she's immature and can't take care of herself. This is why she lashes out at Zack as soon as he gives her the slightest reason to. This is probably why she was protecting Luna against bullies: to show that she can not only take care of herself but of another as well.

He seems very sad to me.
To me he seems jealous of both Ginny's potential husband and Ginny's carefree future.

meesha1971

June 24th, 2009, 1:34 pm

Because he insulted Voldemort not because he was a kid.

All Harry did was point out that Voldemort was a half-blood. He had a pure-blood parent descending from Slytherin so that shouldn't have mattered to Bellatrix - other half-bloods were accepted as Death Eaters so that was not a genuine insult. She was made because Harry dared to speak Voldemort's name.

However, the point being, the fact that he was a kid didn't stop her from trying to curse him, or threatening to torture Ginny, or torturing Neville - Bellatrix didn't care how old her victims were - child or adult was fine with her as long as she got to hurt someone.

Bellatrix defeated Tonks then went where the others were fighting. Only then did Sirius come and fight her.

Bellatrix went running towards the fray and Sirius intercepted her. You had initially said that she targeted Sirius - I was merely pointing out that it was the other way around.

At that point, Harry was the only kid left standing - Neville was there, but he had been hit with the jinx that made his legs dance uncontrollably so he wasn't fighting. Lucius grabbed Harry as Sirius ran off to intercept Bellatrix.

I don't see much of a difference. She got to know him better, yes. But what stands out to her is the fact that he is a hero. I would say her love for his hero-status only increased with her getting to know him better as his defeat of Voldemort the first time was mostly his mother's doing anyway. Now she knows that he has the proper qualities of a hero.

The difference is that it's not the fact that he is a hero that matters to Ginny. It is the qualities that led to him becoming a hero. Harry would have those qualities even if he had never faced Voldemort and nobody in the wizarding world knew his name. That was who he was.

As I said before, Ron and Hermione liked Harry for the same reasons, but nobody ever complains about that being a bad thing.

Maybe she was feisty and talkative but she was never popular nor pretty, nor a good Quidditch player. In fact, in GOf she is bored during the Quidditich match.

Where do you get that? Harry didn't tell us what Ginny was doing during the match - he was focused on the match itself. He does tells us that they were all very excited and talking about the match after it was over - that would include Ginny.

Harry notes that Ginny has friends in the earlier books as well and Ginny's looks never changed. I'm not sure why you keep saying she was not pretty. That makes no sense to me. There was no mention of Ginny being ugly in the first five books and then suddenly becoming beautiful. She looked the same as she always did. :huh:

It's not just Harry. Random boys start making comments about her lovely appearance at the beginning of HBP. That has nothing to do with Harry's POV as Harry cannot control what other people are saying.

What random boys? Pansy makes snide comments about Ginny when Harry is eavesdropping on the Slytherins because Blaise said she had been invited to the Slug Club and Pansy was fishing for compliments from Draco, but I don't recall random boys just coming up and telling Harry that Ginny was pretty.

Again, I have no idea where you're getting that. :huh:

Fair enough. But her social situation doesn't seem to change after the Diary either. She has neither boyfriends nor any friends until OotP.

Harry notes Ginny having friends in other books too. When they arrive at Hogwarts, she goes to sit with her friends. Neville was her friend as well - she went to the Yule Ball with him as friends in GOF. That's where she met Michael Corner and they started dating around the end of that year in the GOF time line - Hermione tells Ron and Harry about that in OOTP. She was friends with Luna all along from what Luna says to Harry - Ginny was always nice to her and stood up for her.

Ginny's social situation didn't change either. Harry's perception changed because he was paying attention.

It's not. It just begs the question where this sense of humour came from.

She always had it.

He asked everyone who was sitting at the table in DH, which includes Bellatrix. No one offers theirs, which would include Bellatrix. If she can't even make a small sacrifice for him then how can we expect her to die for him?

It was an unexpected request - I'm not sure if any of them knew about the connection between the wands actually, but yes, they were all shocked that he asked them that. However, I think it was also clear that Voldemort's intention was to continue to humiliate Lucius because he didn't really give them time to get over the surprise and actually volunteer, IMO.

However, I still don't have any doubt that Bellatrix would have gladly given her life for him - it would have been an honor for her. Just as it would have been an honor for her to sacrifice her children to him if she had any.

I was talking about how the scene was written. Voldemort's fury is described in detail when she dies. He blasts away his three powerful opponents whom he had been fighting for quite some time. The rage gives him the power to do that. You just don't do that for someone who is only your follower. Especially not if you're Voldemort who is self sufficient and independent.

I got the same impression from his reaction to Nagini being killed actually. The only difference in the two was that, when Nagini was killed, chaos reigned with the Centaurs charging, giants going at it, hundreds of parents and villagers coming over the wall to join the fight. When Bellatrix was killed, the fighting around them had paused because everyone was watching those two duels. The reaction was essentially the same - the only difference was that there wasn't chaos reigning around them to hide it, IMO.

Because Hermione's compaasionate side outweighs her dark side. With Ginny whenever we see her she is either extremely jealous, violent, humiliating Ron, being smug about being violent or calling Fleur names. These are not exactly the best characteristics, IMO.

I would have to disagree. We also see Ginny standing up for Neville - even when he puts himself down. She defends Luna. She defends Harry. She was there for Ron when he was poisoned because she loved him and was worried about him. She and her brothers were worried about Molly when Percy started ignoring the family. She was there for Harry and offered her help when he was so upset about seeing SWM. She comforted Ron when he got a blast of Fleur's Veela powers and was so embarrassed about asking her to the ball. She stood up for Hermione when Ron thought she must be lying about having a date for the Yule Ball. She had a chance to go to the Yule Ball with Harry and could have easily broken the date with Neville to jump on it, but she honored her promise and went with Neville anyway. She was there with her brothers and Harry worrying about Arthur when he was attacked by Nagini. She was there with the trio when the saw Neville visiting his parents at St. Mungo's and they all felt horrible for what had happened to his parents.

In contrast we have two instances where she is provoked and reacts emotionally - one with a non-violent spell that makes a person's boogers flap around and the other by flying into the commentator's stand. One instance where she clears her throat loudly when Gabrielle was batting her eyelashes at Harry - which actually strikes me as more that she was trying not to laugh rather than being "extremely jealous" - and one instance of apparent jealousy in which she asked Luna to take Harry to Ravenclaw tower instead of Cho.

I'm not counting the sibling rivalry stuff because they all gave as good as they got and it was obvious that they loved each other so I don't see where any of that would be relevant. That's how siblings behave in my experience.

In all honesty, I would have to say that Ginny actually demonstrates more compassion than Hermione on the whole. Hermione was nice to Neville too, but she was rather rude to Luna all through OOTP and it wasn't until after the incident at the DoM that Hermione unbent and was nicer to her.

Popularity entails being likeable and having good social skills which are personality traits.

But it is not the popularity that attracted Harry. Ginny being likable and having good social skills is not a bad reason for Harry to like her, IMO.

It's too bad he only realized those things when she became popular and pretty. At least that's what the book would have you believe. Her change of personality and Harry's crush for her happening at about the same time cannot be a coincidence.

Actually, no, that wasn't what caused him to realize it. Subconsciously, it started in OOTP when Ginny was really being herself around him - though there is some evidence of that in GOF as well. It stands out more for Harry in HBP while they are at the Burrow though - Ginny starts hanging around with the trio more and he enjoys spending time with her. The first major thing was on the train when Ginny went to go sit with Dean and Harry was annoyed - he didn't realize what it meant, but that didn't have anything to do with Ginny being popular. He was jealous because she had a boyfriend and didn't realize it yet. There's a couple of other ones along the same lines - he asks her to Hogsmeade and looks for her while they're there.

But what made Harry realize what all that meant was when he and Ron accidentally came across Ginny and Dean snogging. That made him see Ginny in a different light - rather like Ron with Hermione and Krum at the Yule Ball only Harry handled it better. That forced him to look at Ginny as a girl who was datable - not his best friends sister, or a classmate, or one of the guys. It had nothing to do with what Ginny looked like or how many friends she had. It was Harry getting smacked upside the head with the fact that Ginny was a girl - someone he could date - and someone he wanted to date. The whole thing caught him by surprise because he hadn't consciously thought about Ginny that way.

So whenever there's something going on in the WW, Ginny would take second place in Harry's mind? Then she would have to be very understanding.

I seriously doubt Harry would ever find himself in that same position again. Do you honestly think that Harry is going to be the center of a kill or be killed prophecy repeatedly for his entire life? :huh:

Besides, Harry isn't good boyfriend material when Voldemort is around but he is good friend material? He has disagreements with Ron and Hermione but he never treats them the way he treats Ginny.

Actually, I would have to disagree. I never considered Harry good friend material either - particularly in the first five books - for the same reasons. He takes Ron and Hermione for granted most of the time - particularly Hermione. They were his punching bags when he's in a bad mood - he always seemed to take his temper out on them. They did all the giving - he did all the taking. They took a backseat to whatever what going on with him at the time.

When Harry gets that "reprieve" in HBP where he gets a taste of what a normal life could be like - which is also when he starts dating Ginny - Harry was a better friend. Not perfect, but he tried more than he had before. He gave back to them for a change - helping Ron with his confidence, trying to comfort Hermione when she was upset over Ron and Lavender, trying to get the two of them to repair their friendship, etc... That time in HBP when he wasn't specifically a target and could just be normal for a little while was a glimpse of the kind of person Harry would be without the constant threat of Voldemort. During that brief time he was good boyfriend material and good friend material. But it didn't last because the whole thing with Voldemort came back full force and that little taste of normality was snatched away. And Harry went right back to what he was doing before because he couldn't have that normal life yet and he realized that. So he plans on leaving everyone behind - including Ron and Hermione. He focuses on himself and what he has to do.

And that continued throughout DH with Harry falling into those same patterns - taking Ron and Hermione for granted, them doing all the giving while he did all the taking, etc... Harry couldn't be a good friend or a good boyfriend until the situation with Voldemort was taken care of.

She didn't. It was their decision to join the Order and they would have done so even if she had left Britain.

Since when did the Order let underage children join? :huh:

I'm talking about when Molly and Arthur joined the Order at the end of GOF. At that point in time, only Bill and Charlie were old enough to join the Order themselves. Percy was as well, but he chose not to. The twins, Ron, and Ginny were all still underage and Molly's decision put them in danger. And she knew that. The Death Eaters could have attacked her children to try and get to her - as was demonstrated in DH with them using the students to keep parents in line - i.e. kidnapping Luna to stop Xenophilius from printing stories supporting Harry. Molly's decision to join the Order could have resulted in all of her children being kidnapped, tortured, and/or killed just to punish her and Arthur for fighting against Voldemort or to try and control them.

Her decision was not entirely based on what she wanted for her kids. If that were the case, she would have taken them away and hidden - and they would have to go with her because they were underage at that time.

Right. But as I've said before, my problem wasn't that we didn't get enough scene but rather how the scenes we got were written. I see nothing there to convince me that these two would be happily married one day. Harry likes Ginny's sense of humour and looks. Ginny likes Harry's hero status. All rather shallows reasons for being together, IMO.

Harry also likes Ginny's personality and physical attraction is a necessary component to any romantic relationship. Without that, they'd just be friends like Harry and Hermione. Ginny like's Harry's personality, his sense of humor, and she was physically attracted to him as well. There's really not much more to developing a romantic relationship. Those are the cornerstones - anything else is superfluous to that, IMO.

The scenes as they were written established that Ginny and Harry had compatible personalities, physical attraction for each other, commonalities like Quidditch, enjoyed each others company, and understood each other very well. Honestly, I don't see where we could expect anything more than that - that's the bulk of developing a literary relationship right there, IMO.

Rowling was:

Yes in book seven she kills Bellatrix- she is the only woman on the good side who kills. I saw Molly and Bellatrix standing opposite of each other for a long time; two completely different characters, who each show a very feminine side of love. The pure and protecting love of Molly, and the obsessive, perverse of Bellatrix. Those two feminine types of energy against each other. That was very satisfying to write

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense but that was her interpretation.

Well, that's not mother vs. anti-mother - where did that idea come from if Jo didn't say it? So - from Jo's perspective - it wasn't about Molly being a mother at all then. It was about two women on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of their ability to love in general.

Makes sense to me.

None of the characters you mentioned act like Bellatrix acted around Voldemort. They want to snog yes but there's not much more to it than that. It's all rather childish but that's because they were so young at the time, of course. The fact that Molly listens to a song says nothing about her sexuality. She didn't write that song nor was she the one singing it. Molly's love is "pure".

Molly's love is pure in the sense that it's unconditional and freely given. It wasn't pure in the sense that she wasn't a sexual creature - how else do you think she ended up with seven children? :lol: Molly didn't need to write the song to be sitting there fantasizing about an intimate moment with her husband related to that song. That scene shows us Molly as a wife rather than a mother - a woman who is still in love with her husband and romantic enough to get all dreamy remembering the two of them dancing to a sexy song. That did demonstrate Molly's sexuality, IMO.

The girls at Hogwarts were also exploring their sexuality - snogging would be part of that. At that age, I wouldn't expect them to go much further. Now, in DH with Ron and Hermione - it's possible because Jo did put some intimate moments between them. Like when Hermione was looking at Ron with such intensity that Harry felt he was intruding on an intimate moment. Or when they fell asleep holding hands.

I thought Jo handled that aspect of it fairly well actually. It's all fairly innocent as far as we see on page, but a teenage girl exploring her sexuality doesn't have to be graphic or even about sex at all. Holding hands, hugging, snogging, learning to understand the myriad of emotions involved - I thought Jo did a good job in demonstrating that without being graphic or crude.

That would be my definition of a chip on her shoulder. Always complaining that people treat her like a child and like she's immature and can't take care of herself. This is why she lashes out at Zack as soon as he gives her the slightest reason to. This is probably why she was protecting Luna against bullies: to show that she can not only take care of herself but of another as well.

I wouldn't call that a chip on her shoulder because that was exactly what they were doing. She was rebelling against that and that's normal, IMO. I don't see where normal sibling rivalry or a teenage girl trying to get her parents to acknowledge she's not a baby anymore is relevant because that is normal behavior, IMO.

But none of that had anything to do with the two confrontations with Zacharias. She lashed out at him because he made her angry - not because he said she was too young or treated her like a child.

And I would say that it's horribly unfair to try to rationalize Ginny being friends with Luna that way. There is absolutely nothing given in the text to support that conclusion, IMO. Ginny was a very good friend to Luna and they genuinely liked each other, IMO.

To me he seems jealous of both Ginny's potential husband and Ginny's carefree future.

Of course he's jealous. He loves Ginny and - at that point in time - he doesn't believe he can ever be with her. He'd already accepted that he was probably going to die and it hurt him terribly to realize that he might not be part of Ginny's future.

Trixa

June 24th, 2009, 2:27 pm

However, the point being, the fact that he was a kid didn't stop her from trying to curse him, or threatening to torture Ginny, or torturing Neville - Bellatrix didn't care how old her victims were - child or adult was fine with her as long as she got to hurt someone.
She had no qualms about torturing children, that's true. But the same would apply to any other Death Eater. Dolohov hexing Hermione is an example which comes to mind.

The difference is that it's not the fact that he is a hero that matters to Ginny. It is the qualities that led to him becoming a hero. Harry would have those qualities even if he had never faced Voldemort and nobody in the wizarding world knew his name. That was who he was.
Harry would not have those qualities if he never faced Voldemort because there's no other way those qualities would have surfaced. If he didn't have any dark wizard to defeat he wouldn't have been a hero, he would have been a normal person of courage and compassion and someone Ginny might or might not have been interested in.
I never got the impression that Ron and Hermione like Harry because he is a a hero. Hermione doesn't like either Harry ro Ron when she first meets them and Ron and Harry start getting along before Ron sees his scar. It's not like any of them leave the room blushing when Harry enters.

Where do you get that? Harry didn't tell us what Ginny was doing during the match - he was focused on the match itself. He does tells us that they were all very excited and talking about the match after it was over - that would include Ginny.
It says somewhere that Ginny had fallen asleep or was yawning.

However, I still don't have any doubt that Bellatrix would have gladly given her life for him - it would have been an honor for her. Just as it would have been an honor for her to sacrifice her children to him if she had any.
If she were an "anti-mother" her children would probably mean very little to her so it wouldn't be a big deal to sacrifice them. Also, what about Lily Potter cheering Harry on to his death? Was that really her or was it some figment of Harry's imagination.

I got the same impression from his reaction to Nagini being killed actually. The only difference in the two was that, when Nagini was killed, chaos reigned with the Centaurs charging, giants going at it, hundreds of parents and villagers coming over the wall to join the fight. When Bellatrix was killed, the fighting around them had paused because everyone was watching those two duels. The reaction was essentially the same - the only difference was that there wasn't chaos reigning around them to hide it, IMO.
The reaction is the same; he screams. But the scene lacks emotions. It just says Voldemort screamed and attempted to curse Neville. Also, Voldemort's reaction to Bellatrix death is just the climax of many other hints about them that we got here and there.

I would have to disagree. We also see Ginny standing up for Neville - even when he puts himself down. She defends Luna. She defends Harry.
I think this is just because she feels cool doing those things, to be honest.

She and her brothers were worried about Molly when Percy started ignoring the family.
Obviously, she loves her family. I never questioned that.

She had a chance to go to the Yule Ball with Harry and could have easily broken the date with Neville to jump on it, but she honored her promise and went with Neville anyway.
That was nice of her, indeed.

In all honesty, I would have to say that Ginny actually demonstrates more compassion than Hermione on the whole.
Ginny shows compassion to people she approves of. Hermione is nice to strangers most of the times, as well. Like when she lets that Death Eater see Harry just so they wouldn't kill Xeno.

Actually, no, that wasn't what caused him to realize it. Subconsciously, it started in OOTP when Ginny was really being herself around him - though there is some evidence of that in GOF as well. It stands out more for Harry in HBP while they are at the Burrow though - Ginny starts hanging around with the trio more and he enjoys spending time with her. The first major thing was on the train when Ginny went to go sit with Dean and Harry was annoyed - he didn't realize what it meant, but that didn't have anything to do with Ginny being popular. He was jealous because she had a boyfriend and didn't realize it yet. There's a couple of other ones along the same lines - he asks her to Hogsmeade and looks for her while they're there.
Yes, I know that was the intention. However the way the whole thing is written can send the wrong messages as too much emphasis is put on Ginny's popularity and especially her good looks. We never see Harry and Ginny spending time together befroe they fall in love. Harry being in love with Ginny comes as a surprise to most readers. We see how other boys react to Ginny, how cool she is, how she is the "life and soul" of the Quidditch team and all that. It's almost like Ginny has to be made into the perfect dream girl so that Harry would have a legitimate reason to fall for her.

What random boys?
Blaise, Amycus, Dean, Michael and those boys that Pansy mentions when she says "many boys think she's good looking."

She always had it.
It was never shown.

It was an unexpected request - I'm not sure if any of them knew about the connection between the wands actually, but yes, they were all shocked that he asked them that.
Their reaction to his request is described: they were shocked and they felt as though he wanted to borrow one of their arms which indicates that it would be a big deal to give your wand to someone else. Neither Bellatrix nor any other DE offer theirs.

I seriously doubt Harry would ever find himself in that same position again. Do you honestly think that Harry is going to be the center of a kill or be killed prophecy repeatedly for his entire life?
No I don't but he may encounter other serious problems during his life.

Actually, I would have to disagree. I never considered Harry good friend material either - particularly in the first five books - for the same reasons. He takes Ron and Hermione for granted most of the time - particularly Hermione. They were his punching bags when he's in a bad mood - he always seemed to take his temper out on them. They did all the giving - he did all the taking. They took a backseat to whatever what going on with him at the time.
Harry has many wonderful moments of friendship with both Ron and Hermione during the books and none of them ever complains about his being a bad friend. He tries to comfort Hermione when Ron leaves, he encourages Ron to not give up and believe in himself more on the Quidditch field. And these are just two examples.

Since when did the Order let underage children join?
They weren't underaged when they joined.

The Death Eaters could have attacked her children to try and get to her - as was demonstrated in DH with them using the students to keep parents in line - i.e. kidnapping Luna to stop Xenophilius from printing stories supporting Harry. Molly's decision to join the Order could have resulted in all of her children being kidnapped, tortured, and/or killed just to punish her and Arthur for fighting against Voldemort or to try and control them.

Xenophilius wasn't even an Order member. This demonstrates that her children would have been in danger regardless of whether she was an Order member or not.

Well, that's not mother vs. anti-mother - where did that idea come from if Jo didn't say it? So - from Jo's perspective - it wasn't about Molly being a mother at all then. It was about two women on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of their ability to love in general.

Makes sense to me.
I don't understand. You've said that it doesn't make sense to you and now it does. Why? Because JKR said it? The idea of mother vs anti mother came from the fans' interpretation of the duel.

Molly's love is pure in the sense that it's unconditional and freely given. It wasn't pure in the sense that she wasn't a sexual creature - how else do you think she ended up with seven children?
That's not the point. She wasn't described in the way Bellatrix was. I've never said HP characters never snog or show affection to each other but Bella/Voldemort is the only relationship where physical love is prominent.
So by putting Molly and Bella together and calling Bella's love perverse you're bascially saying that a woman showing physical desire for a man is wrong and perverse.

But none of that had anything to do with the two confrontations with Zacharias. She lashed out at him because he made her angry - not because he said she was too young or treated her like a child.

I said that the reason she reacted that way was because she had something to prove. She wanted to prove that she can take care of herself and that she is a powerful witch. It has nothing to do with Zack, he just happened to be her target.

I don't see where normal sibling rivalry or a teenage girl trying to get her parents to acknowledge she's not a baby anymore is relevant because that is normal behavior, IMO.

It may be but it is a big part of Ginny's characterization. Neither Hermione nor Luna have that kind of problem. They never feel the need to assert themselves in that way. That's why I said that she had a chip on her shoulder.

And I would say that it's horribly unfair to try to rationalize Ginny being friends with Luna that way. There is absolutely nothing given in the text to support that conclusion, IMO.
I think Ginny's personality supports that conclusion. And it doesn't mean she doesn't really like Luna, it just means that she may have more than just one reason for wanting to stand up for her.

Harry notes that Ginny has friends in the earlier books as well and Ginny's looks never changed. I'm not sure why you keep saying she was not pretty. That makes no sense to me. There was no mention of Ginny being ugly in the first five books and then suddenly becoming beautiful. She looked the same as she always did.
I didn't say she was ugly. It's just that no one makes any comments on her looks.

wickedwickedboy

June 25th, 2009, 9:17 am

I said that the reason she reacted that way was because she had something to prove. She wanted to prove that she can take care of herself and that she is a powerful witch. It has nothing to do with Zack, he just happened to be her target.

Since when is it cool for boys to pick on girls? Zach very likely deserved whatever she retaliated with, imo. I feel Zach should not have been doing whatever it was that molested her. I don't think she did it to prove she was powerful, I think she was angry, :lol:.

Yes, I know that was the intention. However the way the whole thing is written can send the wrong messages as too much emphasis is put on Ginny's popularity and especially her good looks. We never see Harry and Ginny spending time together befroe they fall in love. Harry being in love with Ginny comes as a surprise to most readers. We see how other boys react to Ginny, how cool she is, how she is the "life and soul" of the Quidditch team and all that. It's almost like Ginny has to be made into the perfect dream girl so that Harry would have a legitimate reason to fall for her.

What if Harry had fallen for a plain girl, who bored everyone and didn't have any interests, like Quidditch, in common with him - but was a nice person. Wouldn't we have a legitimate argument that JKR was trying to make Harry into a model of perfection? That he was not swayed by things most males are privy to, but saw only the 'nice person'? I think we'd have as many if not more complaints. :lol:.

I felt like Ginny wasn't depicted as the hottest thing on earth or anything along those lines, but just a pretty, popular girl, who shared interests with Harry and she was nice on top of it to me. I was fine with that - the dude had normal tendencies to me. I used to think Ginny would be like Molly, demeanor/deportment wise, and I thought that Ginny would not make a good wife for Harry for that reason (he's no Arthur, imo). But JKR didn't make her like Molly in those ways, she just seemed pretty cool in the end to me.

Yoana

June 25th, 2009, 10:13 am

Zach very likely deserved whatever she retaliated with, imo.

Likely? But in reality you don't know. Without solid proof that he did deserve it, by assuming he did you're essentially being prejudiced against Zacharias and in favour of Ginny.

Lunatic

June 25th, 2009, 11:58 am

Likely? But in reality you don't know. Without solid proof that he did deserve it, by assuming he did you're essentially being prejudiced against Zacharias and in favour of Ginny.

Agreed, In fact we have contrary evidence in the case of Micheal Corner. According to Ginny he was sulky after the defeat of Ravenclaw but that he was heroic in DH.

Perhaps Ginny is in the habit of 'dissing' her ex's or guys she doesn't like

All the Best,

Lunatic

meesha1971

June 25th, 2009, 3:24 pm

She had no qualms about torturing children, that's true. But the same would apply to any other Death Eater. Dolohov hexing Hermione is an example which comes to mind.

I agree. All of the Death Eaters enjoyed torturing and killing and none of them cared if their victims were children or adults. But Bellatrix was characterized as being more ruthless and enjoying those things on a larger scale.

Harry would not have those qualities if he never faced Voldemort because there's no other way those qualities would have surfaced. If he didn't have any dark wizard to defeat he wouldn't have been a hero, he would have been a normal person of courage and compassion and someone Ginny might or might not have been interested in.

Harry inherited those qualities from his parents. He demonstrated those qualities before he ever faced Voldemort - all through PS/SS. He wouldn't be viewed as a hero by the wizarding world in general without those feats, but his personality would still be the same. That was what Ginny liked and admired about him - not the fact that the wizarding world considered him a hero.

I never got the impression that Ron and Hermione like Harry because he is a a hero. Hermione doesn't like either Harry ro Ron when she first meets them and Ron and Harry start getting along before Ron sees his scar. It's not like any of them leave the room blushing when Harry enters.

Ron was in awe of Harry when they met - so were the twins. They were very excited about meeting Harry Potter. Ron even asked to see his scar. Hermione ignored Harry until she found out who he was and then she got excited and talked about how she'd read all about him in books.

However, I see those situations the same as Ginny's. They all knew he was famous and they were all awed by that initially. As they got to know him, they liked and admired him for the qualities that made him a hero rather than the fact that he was considered a hero.

It says somewhere that Ginny had fallen asleep or was yawning.

That was well after the match. They went back to the tent and they were all so excited that Arthur let them stay up later to discuss the match. He sent them to bed when Ginny fell asleep. They'd been up since the crack of dawn so they were all tired. That demonstrated how late they had stayed up.

If she were an "anti-mother" her children would probably mean very little to her so it wouldn't be a big deal to sacrifice them. Also, what about Lily Potter cheering Harry on to his death? Was that really her or was it some figment of Harry's imagination.

Well, that was the point - Bellatrix can be viewed as an "anti-mother" because children mean nothing to her - whether they were hers or someone else's. She would torture and kill them the same as she would an adult and she would consider it an honor for them to give their lives serving Voldemort.

Lily wasn't cheering Harry on to his death - as spirits watching over Harry, his parents, Sirius, and Lupin would have known that Harry was going to get a choice to come back. Harry not knowing that made his sacrifice significant and allowed him to invoke magic in a similar way to his mother and protect everyone.

The reaction is the same; he screams. But the scene lacks emotions. It just says Voldemort screamed and attempted to curse Neville. Also, Voldemort's reaction to Bellatrix death is just the climax of many other hints about them that we got here and there.

That was to show how chaotic it was - all hell broke loose in that moment and it covered Voldemort's reaction. Harry noticed it because he was still on the ground next to Voldemort.

I think this is just because she feels cool doing those things, to be honest.

Neither Neville nor Luna were popular or considered cool. Ginny didn't become friends with them because it was a cool thing to do. She became friends with them because she liked them. She stood up for them for the same reason - even when Neville criticized himself.

Ginny shows compassion to people she approves of. Hermione is nice to strangers most of the times, as well. Like when she lets that Death Eater see Harry just so they wouldn't kill Xeno.

Xenophilius was Luna's father and Luna was their friend. He wasn't a complete stranger to them. And it was obvious that he was extremely worried and desperate to save his daughter.

We see similar behavior from Ginny as well - she was horrified at what had been done to Neville's parents. She'd never met them. She comforted that girl on the battlefield - she didn't know her. I love that moment - it really highlights the type of person Ginny was, IMO.

Yes, I know that was the intention. However the way the whole thing is written can send the wrong messages as too much emphasis is put on Ginny's popularity and especially her good looks. We never see Harry and Ginny spending time together befroe they fall in love. Harry being in love with Ginny comes as a surprise to most readers. We see how other boys react to Ginny, how cool she is, how she is the "life and soul" of the Quidditch team and all that. It's almost like Ginny has to be made into the perfect dream girl so that Harry would have a legitimate reason to fall for her.

Harry and Ginny's romance was predicted by a lot of readers before HBP ever came out - the old love threads are filled with discussions and debates about that. As I recall, the ones who were "surprised" were primarily those who were dead set against it happening because they didn't like Ginny's character or preferred another match for Harry. There were a few who didn't care who Harry ended up with - but they didn't complain about it either as far as I know. Honestly, I see more emphasis being put on Ginny being "pretty and popular" by people who don't like Ginny as a character than there was in the books. Ginny was well liked among her peers, but she was hardly the most popular girl at school. Her looks never changed over the course of the series - Harry's perception of her changed.

Harry and Ginny spent quite a bit of time together before he realized his feelings for her. She hung out with the trio when they stayed at Grimmauld Place in OOTP - and it was Ginny who managed to get through to him when he thought he was being possessed because she actually had been. She was the one he felt comfortable enough to admit that he was not upset over Cho and that he needed to talk to Sirius - to which she immediately tries to help him with because she can see it's important to him. Ginny hung around with the trio all summer at the Burrow in HBP - Harry attributed his annoyance to her going to sit with Dean to the fact that he had become so used to her being part of their group.

Ginny being the "life and soul of the Quidditch team" and all that occurs after Harry realizes his feelings. That is how Harry perceived her - she was his dream girl at that point and his thoughts reflect that. That would be what some fans like to call the "Harry filter". If you look beyond Harry's perception it is clear that he is exaggerating the circumstances quite a bit. He worried that some other boy would ask Ginny out first, but there wasn't really anything to support his fears - boys weren't following her around or fighting for her attention. After she broke up with Dean, she was left alone as far as we are shown - she hung out with her friends and had a good time playing Quidditch. Harry's concerns were groundless.

Ginny didn't have to be made into anything - her character didn't change in terms of personality or looks. The only changes in Ginny were the normal changes to be expected as you grow up and mature - the same type of changes we see with other characters over the course of the series.

Blaise, Amycus, Dean, Michael and those boys that Pansy mentions when she says "many boys think she's good looking."

Amycus was trying to kill Ginny at the time - he wasn't complimenting her looks. That would be comparable to the Wicked Witch of the West telling Dorothy "I'll get you my pretty" - it wasn't an assessment of how attractive she was. :lol:

Michael and Dean both dated Ginny - of course they found her attractive. They wouldn't have been dating her otherwise.

Blaise did not bring Ginny up at all - that was all Pansy and it was clear that Pansy was jealous and worried that Draco might be attracted to Ginny. Neither Draco nor Blaise had any interest in Ginny so Pansy was satisfied.

The only other reference to Ginny as "pretty" comes from a guy trying to sell protective amulets on the street. He was not assessing Ginny's looks either - he just wanted to make a sale.

So I don't really see very much emphasis on Ginny being pretty and popular on the whole. A few references that are not genuine compliments or assessments of her appearance is not making an issue of it, IMO.

It was never shown.

Ginny hardly spoke to Harry in the first three books because her crush made her so shy around him. That was deliberate to keep her out of Harry's line of vision until after he'd had his relationship with Cho. We do get some glimpses of her personality through how she is perceived by others, but Harry doesn't notice at that time. When Ginny started being herself around Harry, it was shown more on page. It starts being more obvious in GOF and progresses from that point forward. There are several occasions where Harry and Ginny share a moment where they both find something funny.

Their reaction to his request is described: they were shocked and they felt as though he wanted to borrow one of their arms which indicates that it would be a big deal to give your wand to someone else. Neither Bellatrix nor any other DE offer theirs.

They were shocked - and I agree that such a request would be a big deal because there is a personal attachment between a witch/wizard and their wand. However, Voldemort didn't really give them time to recover from the shock and he made it clear fairly quickly that his intention in doing that was to humiliate Lucius with the comment "I see no reason for you to have a wand".

Had he presented it from the angle of it being an honor to give him her wand - particularly a personal request - I think Bellatrix would have handed it over and been pleased that he felt her wand was worthy to use.

No I don't but he may encounter other serious problems during his life.

I doubt he will ever encounter anything in his life that would be on that same scale and require him to focus so much on himself to the exclusion of his loved ones.

However, I would agree that there would very likely be times throughout their lives where Harry does encounter problems that require more of his attention and he would need the support of his loved ones. Not to the same degree as the situation with Voldemort, but problems nonetheless. That is normal for any relationship and the reverse would also be true for Ginny. That's what you do in a healthy relationship. It might be a spouse assuming all of the financial responsibility so the other can go to school. One might take on the bulk of the household duties for a while because the other has a major project/job to take care of concerning their career and they need to focus more of their attention on it. The wife might suffer complications in her pregnancy and be put on bed rest - leaving the husband responsible for everything else. The husband might be injured/sick for a while - leaving the wife to take care of everything else. That's how it works. Sometimes it's balanced and sometimes it's one giving more than the other for a while. It goes back and forth. That's true for any relationship.

At this point in Harry's life, he was the one who needed support because he was the primary target - the "Chosen One" with the fate of the wizarding world on his shoulders. That doesn't mean he's not capable of giving Ginny the same support when a situation crops up that she needs it.

Harry has many wonderful moments of friendship with both Ron and Hermione during the books and none of them ever complains about his being a bad friend. He tries to comfort Hermione when Ron leaves, he encourages Ron to not give up and believe in himself more on the Quidditch field. And these are just two examples.

That was true in HBP - Harry did try to comfort Hermione when she was upset about Ron and Lavender and he did help Ron with his confidence in Quidditch. I acknowledged those things - that was during that brief reprieve where Harry got a taste of having a normal life. But we don't see him do that very often in the previous books - or DH. He has too much on his own plate to do so. When Ron and Hermione fought over Crookshanks/Scabbers, Harry stayed out of it for the most part - he continued to hang around with Ron and basically ignored Hermione during all that. While Ron worried about Hermione taking too much on and tried to figure out how she was doing it all, Harry put it aside because he didn't have time to wonder about how Hermione was getting to all of her classes. When they argued at the Yule Ball, he opted to stay out of that as well. He took his temper out on them constantly in OOTP and they both got on to him for that. When Ron left in DH, Harry threw a blanket over her and basically ignored her. They barely spoke to each other while Ron was gone.

I'm not saying Harry was a bad friend in general - I actually don't fault him for any of that because it was the circumstances that caused it. He needed their help more than they needed his during those times. When he was able to in HBP, he tried to help them as well. So I would say that shows Harry is the type of person who would be there for his friends when they needed him just as they were always there for him - and I would apply that to his relationship with Ginny as well.

They weren't underaged when they joined.

I wasn't referring to when they joined. They were underage when Molly joined and her decision put them in danger. She accepted that because she knew that it was important to stop Voldemort.

Xenophilius wasn't even an Order member. This demonstrates that her children would have been in danger regardless of whether she was an Order member or not.

Xenophilius openly defied Voldemort by printing articles in support of Harry Potter. They took Luna to make him stop doing that.

I would say the same for Molly if she had chosen to fight in a similar manner to Xenophilius rather than joining the Order. Either decision would have resulted in her children being put in danger because Voldemort and/or the Death Eaters would try to use them against her to get her to stop the same as they did with Xenophilius.

That was the point - Molly chose to fight knowing that she was putting her children in danger by doing so. She could have chosen to run - to take them away and hide. She didn't take that choice because she knew it was important to stop Voldemort.

I don't understand. You've said that it doesn't make sense to you and now it does. Why? Because JKR said it? The idea of mother vs anti mother came from the fans' interpretation of the duel.

I think both views make sense - symbolism is rarely limited to one view. Mother vs. anti-mother fits because Molly was a mother who valued the lives of children - her own and others'. Bellatrix can be viewed as an anti-mother because she enjoyed torturing/killing children as much as she did adults and would have been willing to sacrifice her own for Voldemort.

It can also be viewed as Jo described - two women on opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to love. Molly being capable of unconditional love and compassion for others - Bellatrix only being capable of obsessive love.

That's not the point. She wasn't described in the way Bellatrix was. I've never said HP characters never snog or show affection to each other but Bella/Voldemort is the only relationship where physical love is prominent.
So by putting Molly and Bella together and calling Bella's love perverse you're bascially saying that a woman showing physical desire for a man is wrong and perverse.

I would have to disagree. Bellatrix and Voldemort did not have a physical relationship - Bellatrix certainly would not have been opposed to that, but Voldemort never reciprocated because he wasn't capable of feeling any kind of love. Bellatrix made a "proper pure-blood" marriage as her parents expected of her.

Bellatrix is a married woman obsessing/lusting after another man who doesn't care about her at all. She feels no genuine love for anyone. She turns on Andromeda for marrying a muggleborn and is willing to kill her own niece simply because Voldemort said she should. She turns her back on Narcissa when the Malfoys fall from grace - mocking them along with everyone else. She was proud that Draco was given a mission in which he was expected to die and chastised Narcissa for being upset rather than being proud herself. She would be proud to sacrifice her own children for Voldemort. She tortures and kills people, tears families apart, leaves children orphaned - or essentially orphaned - and she glories in the damage she causes. That's what makes her perverse.

In contrast, Molly is a married woman who loves her husband completely and only demonstrates physical desire for him. She would give her own life to protect her children as well as the children of others. She feels compassion for others and opens her home to people in need.

I said that the reason she reacted that way was because she had something to prove. She wanted to prove that she can take care of herself and that she is a powerful witch. It has nothing to do with Zack, he just happened to be her target.

That is not what is shown in the text. Zacharias provoked her and she lost her temper - it had everything to do with Zacharias and how he was behaving. Ginny never needed to prove herself in that manner - her brothers already acknowledged her prowess with the bat bogey hex. :lol:

It may be but it is a big part of Ginny's characterization. Neither Hermione nor Luna have that kind of problem. They never feel the need to assert themselves in that way. That's why I said that she had a chip on her shoulder.

Apples and oranges. Ginny is the youngest of seven children. Hermione and Luna are both only children. They don't have siblings to compete with so there are no issues of sibling rivalry. Neither of them are going to be viewed as "the baby" of the family. Neither of them have overprotective older brothers lecturing them about their dating habits or "reputation".

Ginny never had a chip on her shoulder. She faced the stigma of being the youngest of seven children and always being seen as "the baby". My mother is one of six kids and the youngest - who is in her late 40's now - is still considered the baby of the family. It's a difficult position to be in because parents with more than one child have a tendency to hold on tighter to the youngest and the older siblings tend to always see you as the baby. I'm guilty of that myself - I still think of my sister as though she's five a lot of the time cause that's how old she was when I moved out - she's 23 and gets pretty annoyed at me for that. :lol: Ginny is the last child that her parents have any control over and the extreme danger of the war only amplifies that. It's natural for the youngest to rebel at being slotted into the position of "the baby" - particularly during the teenage years.

I think Ginny's personality supports that conclusion. And it doesn't mean she doesn't really like Luna, it just means that she may have more than just one reason for wanting to stand up for her.

I would have to disagree. As I said above, Ginny never had anything to prove in that regard because her brothers already acknowledged her abilities. It was being viewed as "the baby" that irritated her.

I didn't say she was ugly. It's just that no one makes any comments on her looks.

I wouldn't expect them to in the earlier books - particularly when she was 11 in COS, 12 in POA, and 13 in GOF. Harry always described her with positive descriptors, but it was always appropriate to her age, IMO.

Since when is it cool for boys to pick on girls? Zach very likely deserved whatever she retaliated with, imo. I feel Zach should not have been doing whatever it was that molested her. I don't think she did it to prove she was powerful, I think she was angry, :lol:.

Exactly. :agree:

Zacharias was characterized as antagonistic from the time he was introduced. He made Ginny angry and she reacted. Sure, it's not the most mature response to get angry and retaliate, but I think it's perfectly normal. I wouldn't expect teenagers to be that mature all of the time.

What if Harry had fallen for a plain girl, who bored everyone and didn't have any interests, like Quidditch, in common with him - but was a nice person. Wouldn't we have a legitimate argument that JKR was trying to make Harry into a model of perfection? That he was not swayed by things most males are privy to, but saw only the 'nice person'? I think we'd have as many if not more complaints. :lol:.

I agree. I don't think it would have mattered how Jo handled it - some fans were going to be disappointed and complain no matter what because they were invested in the character and had preferences for what they wanted.

But Jo always understood that. She said it herself - that's the nature of writing. In order for some people to love it, others must loathe it. You can't please everyone.

I felt like Ginny wasn't depicted as the hottest thing on earth or anything along those lines, but just a pretty, popular girl, who shared interests with Harry and she was nice on top of it to me. I was fine with that - the dude had normal tendencies to me. I used to think Ginny would be like Molly, demeanor/deportment wise, and I thought that Ginny would not make a good wife for Harry for that reason (he's no Arthur, imo). But JKR didn't make her like Molly in those ways, she just seemed pretty cool in the end to me.

Agreed. :agree:

Agreed, In fact we have contrary evidence in the case of Micheal Corner. According to Ginny he was sulky after the defeat of Ravenclaw but that he was heroic in DH.

Perhaps Ginny is in the habit of 'dissing' her ex's or guys she doesn't like

All the Best,

Lunatic

Michael being a poor sport about his house team losing to Gryffindor in Quidditch before doesn't preclude him being brave and trying to help students who were being tortured by the Carrows two years later.

We have no reason to doubt the situation was just as Ginny explained. Zacharias was shown to be antagonistic from the moment he was introduced and he appeared to have a personal grudge against Harry and anyone Harry considered a friend. Zacharias provoked her and she lost her temper because of the way he was behaving.

Trixa

June 25th, 2009, 6:26 pm

What if Harry had fallen for a plain girl, who bored everyone and didn't have any interests, like Quidditch, in common with him - but was a nice person. Wouldn't we have a legitimate argument that JKR was trying to make Harry into a model of perfection? That he was not swayed by things most males are privy to, but saw only the 'nice person'? I think we'd have as many if not more complaints. :lol:.

Why? That would have been a nice message to send and it would have been realistic as well, since most girls are average looking and of a normal popularity.

I agree. All of the Death Eaters enjoyed torturing and killing and none of them cared if their victims were children or adults. But Bellatrix was characterized as being more ruthless and enjoying those things on a larger scale.
I didn't get that vibe at all. She enjoyed harming people in general, not just children.

Harry inherited those qualities from his parents. He demonstrated those qualities before he ever faced Voldemort - all through PS/SS. He wouldn't be viewed as a hero by the wizarding world in general without those feats, but his personality would still be the same. That was what Ginny liked and admired about him - not the fact that the wizarding world considered him a hero.
His personality would be that of a brave and compassionate boy just like many other boys from Hogwarts. The whole point of the books was that Harry was a normal teenage boy and not someone extraordinary. Readers were supposed to relate to him. Harry is average. What made him special was that Voldemort chose him as his equal.

Ron was in awe of Harry when they met - so were the twins. They were very excited about meeting Harry Potter
That's understandable but the point was that they got along even before Ron realized who he was.

Well, that was the point - Bellatrix can be viewed as an "anti-mother" because children mean nothing to her - whether they were hers or someone else's. She would torture and kill them the same as she would an adult and she would consider it an honor for them to give their lives serving Voldemort.

I was replying to your comment about how Bellatrix would certainly give her life for Voldemort as she would give her children to him. That was a contradiction to what you said earlier about her being the anti mother.

Lily wasn't cheering Harry on to his death - as spirits watching over Harry, his parents, Sirius, and Lupin would have known that Harry was going to get a choice to come back.
There is no indication in the text that they knew as far as I remember.

Ginny was well liked among her peers, but she was hardly the most popular girl at school. Her looks never changed over the course of the series - Harry's perception of her changed.

Harry is not the only person who talks in the books.

Ginny didn't have to be made into anything - her character didn't change in terms of personality or looks. The only changes in Ginny were the normal changes to be expected as you grow up and mature - the same type of changes we see with other characters over the course of the series.

No other character becomes hot and popular. And Ginny did change. There was no indication of her being pretty or popular in the first four books. Her Quidditch skills came from nowhere as well.
I know we are supposed to think that Harry fell for her because he got to know her better but it sends the wrong message to have Ginny become the prom queen right before Harry discovers he has feelings for her.

Blaise did not bring Ginny up at all - that was all Pansy and it was clear that Pansy was jealous and worried that Draco might be attracted to Ginny. Neither Draco nor Blaise had any interest in Ginny so Pansy was satisfied.

What exactly was the point of hat scene if not to convince the reader that Ginny is a hottie? I doubt the point was to show us that Blaise doesn't like her. What was the point of Amycus calling her pretty? What was the point of having the street beggar call her pretty?

Ginny hardly spoke to Harry in the first three books because her crush made her so shy around him.
Yes, that was probably the reason why we didn't see her sense of humour. But my point was that we didn't see it. The reason doesn't matter, IMO.

They were shocked - and I agree that such a request would be a big deal because there is a personal attachment between a witch/wizard and their wand. However, Voldemort didn't really give them time to recover from the shock and he made it clear fairly quickly that his intention in doing that was to humiliate Lucius with the comment "I see no reason for you to have a wand".
How much time do they need to recover from the shock? Voldemort asks the question waits a few moments and then adds "No volunteers."

It can also be viewed as Jo described - two women on opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to love. Molly being capable of unconditional love and compassion for others - Bellatrix only being capable of obsessive love.

In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to compare the love of one's children with the love of one's lover. I saw nothing wrong with Bella's love for Voldemort to be honest while Molly sometimes disappoints as a mother.

I would have to disagree. Bellatrix and Voldemort did not have a physical relationship - Bellatrix certainly would not have been opposed to that, but Voldemort never reciprocated because he wasn't capable of feeling any kind of love.
He doesn't need any. All he needs is lust.

Bellatrix is a married woman obsessing/lusting after another man who doesn't care about her at all.
I thought it was kind of obvious that he did.

She turns her back on Narcissa when the Malfoys fall from grace - mocking them along with everyone else. She was proud that Draco was given a mission in which he was expected to die and chastised Narcissa for being upset rather than being proud herself. She would be proud to sacrifice her own children for Voldemort. She tortures and kills people, tears families apart, leaves children orphaned - or essentially orphaned - and she glories in the damage she causes. That's what makes her perverse.
No, that makes her a Death Eater obsessed with blood purity. I think it's important to make a distinction between Bella's "love" for Voldemort and Bella's dedication to him and the cause.

I agree. I don't think it would have mattered how Jo handled it - some fans were going to be disappointed and complain no matter what because they were invested in the character and had preferences for what they wanted.
It's really upsetting when Ginny fans accuse people of being somehow prejudiced against her because they are disgruntled shippers. For all I care, Harry could have married Ron Weasley at the end and it wouldn't have mattered to me. Nor do I "have it in" for Ginny for any reason. It's nothing personal. I'm mostly bother by how she was written and by the message she sends then I am by what she does in the series or by her personality. I have absolutely nothing invested in any ship concerning Harry, Hermione or Ron.

But Jo always understood that. She said it herself - that's the nature of writing. In order for some people to love it, others must loathe it.
Those two things are completely uncconected. I don't like something because others hate it nor do I hate something because others like it. I think she was joking when she said that.

I would have to disagree. As I said above, Ginny never had anything to prove in that regard because her brothers already acknowledged her abilities.
Did she know that, though? She wasn't there when they said it.

That was the point - Molly chose to fight knowing that she was putting her children in danger by doing so. She could have chosen to run - to take them away and hide. She didn't take that choice because she knew it was important to stop Voldemort.
Yes, that's true. But her motivation for wanting Voldemort stopped may have more to do with her family's wellbeing than with the wellbeing of Muggleborns. I don't see how these two things contradict each other. She fought, knowing it would put her family in danger but she saw it as a risk worth taking for her children's future.

birdi86

June 25th, 2009, 8:27 pm

I never understood these comments about Ginny like she was the next Helen of Troy. Of the women described as beautiful (Fleur, the Patil sisters, Narcissa and a younger Bellatrix), she is not one of them. She is described as pretty as often as Hermione is and if being told by some creepy seller and a Death Eater that she's pretty means something than Hermione being hit on by drunk Muggles in DH must mean something as well.

Also - Blaise never says Ginny is pretty. Pansy does to gauge Draco's reaction. Draco doesn't have a reaction, Blaise is grossed out and in the scene they share together, it's Ginny who initiates a conversation with Blaise. Otherwise, Blaise pays more attention to Harry than he does Ginny.

Because we see things through Harry's eyes, he describes Ginny is very positive ways but he doesn't say Ginny has a nice body or a pretty face or anything like that. All we know of Ginny's looks is that she has bright red hair, freckles, brown eyes and is short. Compare that to the way Harry described Fleur and even Bellatrix. And it's only because Hermione has bushy hair (and Harry seems to have a thing about hair) that she's not described as attractive. Harry describes Hermione as "very pretty" at the Yule Ball when she had her hair done, something I don't believe he ever does for Ginny until DH and that's after they had dated.

And Hermione and Ginny have both had the same number of dates/boyfriends before they settled down with Ron and Harry but Ginny stayed with her boyfriends longer. Oh, and it was Hermione, the supposed plain Jane who had an international Quidditch Star in love with her when she was 14.

But Ginny is hot stuff? But the reaction Ginny gets from boys is unbelievable? I don't get it. Ginny is a big fish in a small pond. The British Wizarding World is basically a small town and Ginny is the youngest daughter of a prolific family of blood traitors who contain some notable people and are friends with Harry Potter. She's an attractive young girl who likes sports and jokes (which to most teenage boys would make her hot) has had some interesting things happen to her like being possessed by Tom Riddle and fighting Death Eaters at the DoM. It's not unreasonable that people would know of her. It's a small world she lives in. She plays on the House team so she would seem popular because she is probably friends with those on that team and seems extroverted to boot.

Girls like Ginny exist. I don't see why it's a bad thing to be an extroverted tomboy or how that's a bad role model for girls. Ginny is slightly above average in many ways but she's not the smartest person in the books or even in her family (that would probably be Percy or maybe the Twins), she doesn't have the coolest adventures (that would be Ron) and she might not even be the best Quidditch player (I think the legendary Charlie would have her beat).

By the standards of her own family, Ginny is average.

I doubt the point was to show us that Blaise doesn't like her. What was the point of Amycus calling her pretty? What was the point of having the street beggar call her pretty?

To show that Harry had Ginny on his mind and was paying attention more to what people said about her?

It's really upsetting when Ginny fans accuse people of being somehow prejudiced against her because they are disgruntled shippers.

Well, you probably don't realize it but the argument you've put forth is the standard anti-Ginny rant. Though it didn't go as far as some anti-Ginny rants, calling her a tramp, a Mary Sue and saying that Harry was only with her because she is "identical" to Lily.

Trixa

June 25th, 2009, 9:23 pm

I don't see why it's a bad thing to be an extroverted tomboy or how that's a bad role model for girls.
It's not. Being turned into one as the hero falls in love with you is. I never got why Ginny couldn't have been a hot, popular girl from the beginning. Why did she have to go from very shy to very popular?

Girls like Ginny exist.
Ginny is both fiesty and compassionate. She is smart, she is hot, she is a very good Quidditch player, she is cool, she is powerful, she is funny, she is understanding and forgiving... In other words she seems too good to be true, IMO. She represents an ideal, she is every boy's dreamgirl. Sure, she doesn't have Hermione's brains but then again, bookworms were never considered cool and it's usually not an attractive quality in either men or women. (But especially in women, probably).

To show that Harry had Ginny on his mind and was paying attention more to what people said about her?
JKR could have had those people say anything about Ginny in order to make that point. It's not like they had to admire her looks.

Well, you probably don't realize it but the argument you've put forth is the standard anti-Ginny rant.
Have you ever wondered why so many people dislike Ginny and/or her relationship with Harry? Ginny is basically one of the most criticized female characters. There has to be a reason for that.

wickedwickedboy

June 25th, 2009, 9:27 pm

Likely? But in reality you don't know. Without solid proof that he did deserve it, by assuming he did you're essentially being prejudiced against Zacharias and in favour of Ginny.

Very possibly, but I will always favor the girl in a school yard dissension situation - that's just me. I don't really require proof myself, I was just being diplomatic. Zach should stick to picking on other males if he desires to pick on people, imo. In that particular situation, Ginny cannot have the wrong of it in my view.

Why? That would have been a nice message to send and it would have been realistic as well, since most girls are average looking and of a normal popularity.

I disagree, I think it would have been some kind of message of hope and wishful thinking. It is extremely rare for that type of girl to get the hero in real life (happens but not usually). What usually happens is the hero who is already married, dumps the plain girl for the beauty queen he'd never been able to get before. And not to discriminate, women do the same thing, imo. Famed plainer looking women also can get the hotter looking males. This happens. Not always, but it is this many would like to see change. The hero (in whatever way, fame, fortune, heroics, looks, etc.) Keeping the plain wife or taking the plain wife to mate is something many think would be just great. Whether it would be or not is debatable, but it isn't the reality for the most part, imo. Nonetheless, it would be that line of thinking that JKR would be advocating, imo. In that light, Harry would come across as better than many males - and he already does, because of his whole sacrifice, kill the big villain deal. So in the end, he would be too good to be true in all ways, imo (assuming one feels a wife who is plain on the outside and nice on the inside will always be the better person - which again is highly debatable)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, but a girl like Ginny was pretty to many and popular besides. I truly see no problem with Harry also finding her so. If that makes him too normal, well good, because he was in other ways blown out of proportion and not portrayed as normal (sacrifice, heroically vanquishing the villain, forgiveness, etc.), imo. But note that I feel Ginny was a good hearted person also, so there was no loss for Harry in this situation that I could see.

Yoana

June 25th, 2009, 9:57 pm

Very possibly, but I will always favor the girl in a school yard dissension situation - that's just me. I don't really require proof myself, I was just being diplomatic. Zach should stick to picking on other males if he desires to pick on people, imo. In that particular situation, Ginny cannot have the wrong of it in my view.

She can't have been in the wrong because she's a girl? Marcus, that is sexist.

Green_Arrow

June 25th, 2009, 10:10 pm

What usually happens is the hero who is already married, dumps the plain girl for the beauty queen he'd never been able to get before.:rotfl: Just imagined Harry dumping Ginny for Lavender. :lol:

One thing JK has done well, imo, is to give the characters depth without making them too flouncy and 'perfect' on the outside. Thankfully we don't get and over-load on the physical appearance of the characters, and I can't really see any mention of Ginny as plain in looks. I gathered that she's be quite attractive, being able to find quite a few dates, but not to the point of being a slut. She's not a spot-light character of the book, but you can tell she has a good heart - and maybe this is one of the traits what had attracted Harry to her.

The movies on the other hand made her look a little plain and blend - not the way I'd imagined her.

Trixa

June 25th, 2009, 10:16 pm

I disagree, I think it would have been some kind of message of hope and wishful thinking. It is extremely rare for that type of girl to get the hero in real life (happens but not usually). What usually happens is the hero who is already married, dumps the plain girl for the beauty queen he'd never been able to get before.
This seems rather cynical to me. There are no heroes in real life just like there are no dark wizards so the comparison with real life doesn't really work here. Also, in real life...um... most women are plain and they do get dates, marry, have children and husbands who truly love them. It is possible, even if they are plain. So I don't think it would be unrealistic for Harry to end up with a plain girl as he isn't exactly a looker either.

Green_Arrow

June 25th, 2009, 10:19 pm

most women are plain and they do get dates, marry, have children and husbands who truly love them.
You're right in saying this, but I think we've all got out own definitions to 'plain' and 'attractive'. :)

wickedwickedboy

June 25th, 2009, 10:30 pm

She can't have been in the wrong because she's a girl? Marcus, that is sexist.

Yeah in a way it is, but even being called sexist won't change my opinion that boys should not pick on girls in the school yard. No one should pick on anyone of course - but that particular scenario is intolerable to me.

This seems rather cynical to me. There are no heroes in real life just like there are no dark wizards so the comparison with real life doesn't really work here. Also, in real life...um... most women are plain and they do get dates, marry, have children and husbands who truly love them. It is possible, even if they are plain. So I don't think it would be unrealistic for Harry to end up with a plain girl as he isn't exactly a looker either.

I'm sorry, I thought the real life comparison was what you were referring to. However, I'm fine with eliminating that aspect. So what difference does it make whether Ginny is pretty or plain? Wouldn't it be equally realistic for Harry to marry either?

Annielogic

June 25th, 2009, 10:39 pm

Yeah in a way it is, but even being called sexist won't change my opinion that boys should not pick on girls in the school yard. No one should pick on anyone of course - but that particular scenario is intolerable to me.

I agree with Yoana, the point is you're assuming there in your comment, that Zach started it or is in the wrong and not Ginny, simply because of gender, not hard facts of the matter. This kind of scenerio allows a girl to get away with bad/negative behaviour because they aren't seen as being in the wrong no matter what, and not confronted with their behaviour or attitude towards others.

wickedwickedboy

June 25th, 2009, 11:08 pm

I agree with Yoana, the point is you're assuming there in your comment, that Zach started it or is in the wrong and not Ginny, simply because of gender, not hard facts of the matter.

No I'm not assuming that at all. I was basing it on the fact that Ginny cast the bat bogey hex in response to Zach molesting her. Do I have the facts wrong?

This kind of scenerio allows a girl to get away with bad/negative behaviour because they aren't seen as being in the wrong no matter what, and not confronted with their behaviour or attitude towards others.

Huh? I never said anything of the sort. I said boys should not pick on girls - hence since I believe that is what happened in this scenario, Ginny can not be found in the wrong for retaliating, imo. My added view that boys should never pick on girls in the school yard, is just an added bonus thought. It could be construed as sexist, I agree, but for me it is a generally true stereotype that boys are larger and stronger and I feel it is an unfair battle from the start.

Annielogic

June 25th, 2009, 11:19 pm

No I'm not assuming that at all. I was basing it on the fact that Ginny cast the bat bogey hex in response to Zach molesting her. Do I have the facts wrong?

Molesting?? He was asking her questions. Why is it bad that he is trying to find out the facts of what happened to Harry and Voldemort? For example: Harry and co. were asking these students to conspire and act against an authority figure, Umbridge and the Ministry. Yet, I get the feeling these same students aren't allowed to ask questions or verify what is happening, when they are being asked to follow another authority figure, Dumbledore or when signing Hermione's dreaded parchement. Asking questions seems reasonable to me, especially if there is big trouble on the horizon.

Huh? I never said anything of the sort. I said boys should not pick on girls - hence since I believe that is what happened in this scenario, Ginny can not be found in the wrong for retaliating, imo.

When agreeing with Yoana, I was replying to this part:

Very possibly, but I will always favor the girl in a school yard dissension situation - that's just me. I don't really require proof myself,

You said don't require proof, you will automatically favour the girl without knowing what happened. I pointed out a consequence I have seen happen.

All we know is Zach was asking questions. They were possibly perfectly valid and reasonable, we don't know what they where exactly. Ginny may not have liked Harry being questioned, with her feisty temper that might have been enough.

TreacleTartlet

June 25th, 2009, 11:23 pm

No I'm not assuming that at all. I was basing it on the fact that Ginny cast the bat bogey hex in response to Zach molesting her. Do I have the facts wrong?

Yes, you do have the facts wrong Wick. :) Zach was only pestering her about what happened at the Ministry of Magic, he didn't molest her.

'He saw me hex Zacharias Smith, ' said Ginny, 'you remember that idiot from Hufflepuff who was in the DA? He kept on and on asking about what happened at the Ministry and in the end he annoyed me so much I hexed him -'

wickedwickedboy

June 25th, 2009, 11:56 pm

Molesting?? He was asking her questions. Why is it bad that he is trying to find out the facts of what happened to Harry and Voldemort? Harry and co. are asking these students to conspire and act against an authority figure, Umbridge and the Ministry. Yet, I get the feeling these same students aren't allowed to ask questions or verify what is happening, when they are being asked to follow another authority figure, Dumbledore or when signing Hermione's dreaded parchement. Asking questions seems reasonable to me, especially if there is big trouble on the horizon.

I agree they should be able to ask Hermione questions - but asking Ginny, Neville or Cho seems rather pointless as they only know as much as the other students.

When agreeing with Yoana, I was replying to this part: You said don't require proof, you will automatically favour the girl without knowing what happened. I pointed out a consequence I have seen happen.

Ah okay. Hopefully I clarified what I was trying to say. :)

All we know is Zach was asking questions. They were possibly perfectly valid and reasonable, we don't know what they where exactly. Ginny may not have liked Harry being questioned, with her feisty temper that might have been enough.

Yes, you do have the facts wrong Wick. :) Zach was only pestering her about what happened at the Ministry of Magic, he didn't molest her.

'He saw me hex Zacharias Smith, ' said Ginny, 'you remember that idiot from Hufflepuff who was in the DA? He kept on and on asking about what happened at the Ministry and in the end he annoyed me so much I hexed him -'

Ah, well I did have the facts wrong. I'm glad Zach didn't molest her - that was what concerned me. I would have to have more information to judge this particular situation than what was given in the canon. Frankly, if he was pestering her to death, I can see her finally feeling perturbed enough to hex him into silence - she wasn't portrayed as having the patience of Mother Teresa or anything. Hermione would have likely done the same - except not in this instance because she actually knew more. Ginny didn't have any more info than he did to my knowledge - do I have that fact wrong too?

LyraLovegood

June 26th, 2009, 12:36 am

Probably, as Ginny was at the Ministry. Cho wasn't, so I don't understand her inclusion in the list of people who knew as much about it as Ginny, but less about it than Hermione. :hmm:

wickedwickedboy

June 26th, 2009, 12:40 am

I thought Annie said that his questions were in light of his joining the DA - or am I confused? :lol:. You mean when he was asking what happened when the kids were at the ministry facing the DEs? For example, about Harry being possessed by Voldemort and all of that? If so, I am glad Ginny gave him the smack down, lol - that was none of his business and he did not need ot know that in order to make a decision on whether to fight Voldemort or not, imo.

LyraLovegood

June 26th, 2009, 12:50 am

I think the referance to Zach being in the DA was Ginny's way of making sure Harry knew whom they were talking about, and the "what happened at the Ministry" was about the time a few months prior to the Slug Club when Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Neville and Ginny flew on Thestrals to London to try to save Sirius from the Department of Mysteries.

Can't be more specific than that.

I'm also glad we've cleared up the difference between molesting and pestering, and that we all agree that molesting is much worse! :lol:

birdi86

June 26th, 2009, 9:10 am

She represents an ideal, she is every boy's dreamgirl.

Actually, I know as many male fans who prefer Hermione or Luna (or a background character like the Greengrass sisters that they can mold into whoever they want) as much as I do those who like Ginny. I mean, like I said, she definitely has a personality that would make her popular with teenage boys who like rude jokes, sports and cute girls (which I'm guessing would be a majority) but there are teenage boys who probably like someone more serious or feminine or low-key or whatever.

More fans, both male and female, tend to cite Hermione and not Ginny as their favorite female character. Which makes sense, Hermione is a main character and gets much more page time.

Have you ever wondered why so many people dislike Ginny and/or her relationship with Harry? Ginny is basically one of the most criticized female characters. There has to be a reason for that.

When I say this understand that I am not aiming this at you but just mentioning a general trend.

Most fans who dislike Ginny do so for two reasons: 1.) She sunk their preferred Harry ship and 2.) Misogyny.

On the first, many Harry/Hermione shippers, Harry/Luna shippers, Harry/Draco shippers and Snape/Harry shippers were very upset with Ginny because Harry falls in love with her and marries her. They don't think Ginny deserves Harry, that's she's not good enough for him and that by getting with Harry it proves that she's a Mary Sue (not true), that Harry has an Oedipal Complex (lol, no) and that it sends the wrong message to young girls telling them that it's ok to (as the Harry/Hermione shippers so charmingly put it) "choose what's easy over what's right".

As for the misogyny, there is no other female character who gets sexist epithets hurled at her by fans as often as Ginny. She is called a shrew, a harpy, a word that rhymes with witch, a tramp, the Hogwarts' broom and so on and so forth. Fans make utterly vile suggestions about how there is only one reason for Harry to be with her.

You know in DH, right before Harry dies there's a line that goes "he though of Ginny and her lips on his--"

Well, many fans decided to interpret that in the lewdest way possible because, of course, Harry only likes her for one thing.

Now, a lot of these same fans were the disgruntled shippers I mentioned above but some aren't. Some just think that's the most appropriate way to express their distaste for a character rather than simply saying, "I find her obnoxious" or "she's a spoiled brat" or something that doesn't include a gendered insult.

I realize Ginny has a rather obnoxious personality that is similar to the Twins (or even Draco Malfoy's but without the racism and classism) and I do think JKR messed up when trying to describe how funny Ginny was. Unlike with the Twins, Ron, Draco and even Harry she rarely bothered to show it and instead told us. I don't know why she did that, maybe she didn't want to bother maybe she didn't feel Ginny's sense of humor was distinct enough from the Twins and Ron's. Who knows?

I think Ginny suffers in part from the poor-writing that defines HBP. While I liked the book for the romances and the Draco and Snape's storylines, it is the most disjointed, poorly-written book of the series. I never realized it until reading about the making of the movie and realizing that it sounded so all over the place because the book was so all over the place. It was clear that JKR was trying to fit in a lot of loose-ends and things she knew she wouldn't be able to do in DH. And Harry and Ginny's relationship is one of those things.

But Ginny's development isn't that different from say, Draco Malfoy's. At least with Ginny we have a clear idea of where she stood on certain things by the time HBP and DH had ended. With Draco, no one knows for certain how he felt about Dumbledore's death, how he felt about Crabbe and Goyle as friends, how he felt about Pansy as a girlfriend, how he felt about his parents' involvement with Voldemort and so on and so forth.

But you don't often hear people criticize Draco's characterization in the same way they do Ginny's even though they're both secondary characters with whom a lot has to be guessed or inferred. People seem to have higher expectations for Ginny for reasons that make no sense. She's not the heroine of the story or even one of the main characters. We know as much about her as we do any other non-main character like Draco, Tonks, Luna, the Twins and so on.

All we know is Zach was asking questions. They were possibly perfectly valid and reasonable, we don't know what they where exactly.

Smith was asking questions about an event in which Ginny and her friends were attacked and nearly killed and the man who had sheltered her family for a year was killed. That is grossly insensitive at best. While Ginny wasn't right to hex him, I do think it was understandable that she was upset with someone who repeatedly pestered about a traumatic event.

Yoana

June 26th, 2009, 9:58 am

Most fans who dislike Ginny do so for two reasons: 1.) She sunk their preferred Harry ship and 2.) Misogyny.

Ginny is the only HP character I dislike. I have never in my life been a shipper. I am so definitely NOT misogynist. My reason for disliking her is that she does nothing for me as a character. I find her uncovinving, blatantly endowed with every admirable quality JKR could think of, and generally very poorly written. It feels like JKR overdid it in her effort to sell Ginny to her readers. Now that's just my personal perception of the character and I readily accept that there are many fans who identify with Ginny, enjoy her character and have no problem relating to her - but for me, personally, she's just bad writing.

This my reason for disliking her and always has been.

Annielogic

June 26th, 2009, 10:06 am

I agree they should be able to ask Hermione questions - but asking Ginny, Neville or Cho seems rather pointless as they only know as much as the other students.

and . .

Ginny didn't have any more info than he did to my knowledge - do I have that fact wrong too?

Ginny was present at the Ministry (fight against the DE's), so she would know as much as Neville and Hermione. Cho wasn't.

Ah okay. Hopefully I clarified what I was trying to say. :)

Yes. ;)

Frankly, if he was pestering her to death, I can see her finally feeling perturbed enough to hex him into silence - she wasn't portrayed as having the patience of Mother Teresa or anything.

Yes, she has quite a fiesty, quick temper sometimes. :lol:

I thought Annie said that his questions were in light of his joining the DA - or am I confused? :lol:.

Well, if you're part of a secret organisation, it helps to know what is going on, preferably the truth. :lol: He might have been weighing all this information as to whether to stay.

Zach may have been insensitive in how he asked, I grant you, we don't know. I can understand why he would be asking questions about that particular event, their experince and knowledge gained from fighting the DE's and Voldemort, which is what the DA where training for.

For example, about Harry being possessed by Voldemort and all of that? If so, I am glad Ginny gave him the smack down, lol - that was none of his business and he did not need ot know that in order to make a decision on whether to fight Voldemort or not, imo.

Yes, I agree that would be a very sensitive subject. :agree: Hyperthetically however, if Harry knows of a way to fight Voldemort possessing someone, that knowledge could help somone else if they find themselves being attacked. Zach might have wondered what was needed for defense in such a situation. :shrug:

I can't see Ginny reacting to well to be pestered, especially if she thinks (in turn) Harry is being hounded.

wickedwickedboy

June 26th, 2009, 10:11 am

Actually, I know as many male fans who prefer Hermione or Luna (or a background character like the Greengrass sisters that they can mold into whoever they want) as much as I do those who like Ginny. I mean, like I said, she definitely has a personality that would make her popular with teenage boys who like rude jokes, sports and cute girls (which I'm guessing would be a majority) but there are teenage boys who probably like someone more serious or feminine or low-key or whatever.

More fans, both male and female, tend to cite Hermione and not Ginny as their favorite female character. Which makes sense, Hermione is a main character and gets much more page time.

I think that makes sense. I agree that a great number of guys at 15-18 or so, don't usually look about for IQ's and well, to be honest, girls like Luna aren't too popular generally in my experience. However, that is not universal, and some guys do consider those factors - perhaps more today than back in the 80's although based on what I've seen, that isn't the case - but I have only lived in relatively large to extremely large cities, so my experience is limited to that.

Nonetheless, one factor I think has to be taken into consideration for this group of females in the series is that we only saw them till they were 16-18. They all matured I would presume and so it is rather difficult to make the assumption that the final romances that resulted were made up of the characters as we last saw them (excluding the Epilogue which wasn't very forthcoming). I'm sure Ginny wasn't tossing out bat bogey hexes and Hermione wasn't confunding those trying out for professional teams so her friends could capture a spot. These types of youthful behaviors pass in most people and I feel that is what would occur here.

Most fans who dislike Ginny do so for two reasons: 1.) She sunk their preferred Harry ship and 2.) Misogyny.

On the first, many Harry/Hermione shippers, Harry/Luna shippers, Harry/Draco shippers and Snape/Harry shippers were very upset with Ginny because Harry falls in love with her and marries her. They don't think Ginny deserves Harry, that's she's not good enough for him and that by getting with Harry it proves that she's a Mary Sue (not true), that Harry has an Oedipal Complex (lol, no) and that it sends the wrong message to young girls telling them that it's ok to (as the Harry/Hermione shippers so charmingly put it) "choose what's easy over what's right".

As for the misogyny, there is no other female character who gets sexist epithets hurled at her by fans as often as Ginny. She is called a shrew, a harpy, a word that rhymes with witch, a tramp, the Hogwarts' broom and so on and so forth. Fans make utterly vile suggestions about how there is only one reason for Harry to be with her.

You know in DH, right before Harry dies there's a line that goes "he though of Ginny and her lips on his--"

Well, many fans decided to interpret that in the lewdest way possible because, of course, Harry only likes her for one thing.

Now, a lot of these same fans were the disgruntled shippers I mentioned above but some aren't. Some just think that's the most appropriate way to express their distaste for a character rather than simply saying, "I find her obnoxious" or "she's a spoiled brat" or something that doesn't include a gendered insult.

That cracked me up. :lol:. I didn't know all of those things as I generally avoided the pairing up threads. I didn't realize these things were said. I don't think that most represent a fair rendering of the character though.

I realize Ginny has a rather obnoxious personality that is similar to the Twins (or even Draco Malfoy's but without the racism and classism) and I do think JKR messed up when trying to describe how funny Ginny was. Unlike with the Twins, Ron, Draco and even Harry she rarely bothered to show it and instead told us. I don't know why she did that, maybe she didn't want to bother maybe she didn't feel Ginny's sense of humor was distinct enough from the Twins and Ron's. Who knows?

I didn't find Ginny or the Twins obnoxious. I thought they were funny and/or pretty much just kids. Draco was funny too, but he did have a slightly crueler streak built into his character, imo. I ended up liking Ginny's characterization. I totally agree she wasn't fully developed, but I do think that is because she was not a member of the trio. I used to believe that other secondary characters were developed more - but I no longer believe that. What happened in other cases was that one aspect of the person would be highlighted throughout the series, imo, and so at first glance they seemed more developed. But when you really start asking questions, you find yourself without answers for almost all of them, imo.

We don't know the daily details of Ginny's life - but alas, we don't know them for Lupin, Draco, Neville, Luna, Sirius, Snape or Dumbledore either - only the trio really - and not so much Hermione as Ron and Harry, imo. Sure we can say Snape taught and was head of house - Sirius had to stay at #12G and he watched Buckbeak and drank a bit - but we can also say that Ginny attended classes, played Quidditch and dated. We know points about characters as to how they related with Harry - but we know that about her too. We may not have had as many interactions in some cases (Harry was with Dumbledore more in canon for instance) - but when you think about the little we know of Dumbledore or other characters, I can match you point for point with what we know about Ginny, imo. So I feel now that it is a mischaracterization of the series to say she is less developed than others. For example, another female, Luna - my idea of her is that she liked her friends, went around spouting Quibbler nonsense and reading it, and occassionally had a real insight into life - and her housemates hid her stuff, but is that all there was to her? I would have to say no. But some feel she was 'well developed' - I would disagree.

I think Ginny suffers in part from the poor-writing that defines HBP. While I liked the book for the romances and the Draco and Snape's storylines, it is the most disjointed, poorly-written book of the series. I never realized it until reading about the making of the movie and realizing that it sounded so all over the place because the book was so all over the place. It was clear that JKR was trying to fit in a lot of loose-ends and things she knew she wouldn't be able to do in DH. And Harry and Ginny's relationship is one of those things.

I would respectfully disagree - although I respect your view. However, for me, all of these characters, including Ginny, and their relationships, were developed quite sufficiently in terms of the series. I didn't want to know more because it was primarily an adventure/magic fantasy series, imo, not a romance novel or even a relationship heavy series, imo. So I don't think JKR wrote her poorly, she just wrote her as characters are often written in adventure/fantasies - just enough to know what needs to be known, imo. I think perhaps for those who wanted more information, the series could seem poorly written in that regard - but for me, mostly interested in the main storyline arc, this was sufficient. I wanted more werewolf - and I didn't get it, but I don't think that reflects poorly on JKR's writing - she simply had no need to include more werewolf and she elected not to, imo.

But Ginny's development isn't that different from say, Draco Malfoy's. At least with Ginny we have a clear idea of where she stood on certain things by the time HBP and DH had ended. With Draco, no one knows for certain how he felt about Dumbledore's death, how he felt about Crabbe and Goyle as friends, how he felt about Pansy as a girlfriend, how he felt about his parents' involvement with Voldemort and so on and so forth.

Agreed - but I don't think this is poor writing. It is just that taking time to detail 25 characters, any one of whom may be someone's favorite, would require a much longer work and in my view, detract from the adventure fantasy.

Smith was asking questions about an event in which Ginny and her friends were attacked and nearly killed and the man who had sheltered her family for a year was killed. That is grossly insensitive at best. While Ginny wasn't right to hex him, I do think it was understandable that she was upset with someone who repeatedly pestered about a traumatic event.

Yeah, I would be with Ginny on that one - without knowing more. I just recalled Zach was the one who was pestering people at the DA meeting also. He was annoying and I would have hexed him quiet also at 15 - even over something less meaningful than the Ministry incident. Now that I recall his characterization, the suggestion that he was polietly asking reasonable questions is highly unlikely to me - as he didn't strike me as knowing what polite was - nor particularly reasonable in his questioning behavior during the DA meeting, imo.

Trixa

June 26th, 2009, 10:20 am

I'd like some evidence or at least an explanation for your choice of the word "most".
Ginny is the only HP character I dislike. I have never in my life been a shipper. I am so definitely NOT misogynist. My reason for disliking her is that she does nothing for me as a character. I find her uncovinving, blatantly endowed with every admirable quality JKR could think of, and generally very poorly written. It feels like JKR overdid it in her effort to sell Ginny to her readers.
These are my reasons for disliking her too. However, birdi is right as well. I have seen those comments that she is describing and they are rather unpleasant to read even for someone who isn't a Ginny fan. I don't understand how a girl who has dated three boys can be considered easy and I do think some people are biased against her because of shipping. I also think a feminist would have more problems with Ginny than a mysogynist.

wickedwickedboy

June 26th, 2009, 10:22 am

Well, if you're joining a secret organisation, it helps to know what is going on, preferably the truth. :lol: He might have been weighing all this information as to whether to stay.

I'm getting the timing all mixed up. Wasn't Ginny referring to when Slughorn saw her throw the bat bogey? That would have to be that year (Harry's 6th)wouldn't it? Sluggy wasn't there in 5th year. So how could Zach be weighing the joining of the DA? They had disbanded by then I thought. Am I confusing the time line?

I'd like some evidence or at least an explanation for your choice of the word "most".

Ginny is the only HP character I dislike. I have never in my life been a shipper. I am so definitely NOT misogynist. My reason for disliking her is that she does nothing for me as a character. I find her uncovinving, blatantly endowed with every admirable quality JKR could think of, and generally very poorly written. It feels like JKR overdid it in her effort to sell Ginny to her readers. Now that's just my personal perception of the character and I readily accept that there are many fans who identify with Ginny, enjoy her character and have no problem relating to her - but for me, personally, she's just bad writing.

I think though, that JKR tried to sell a number of characters to her readers in that way - or certain aspects of the characterizations. Some in an even quicker fashion, imo: Kreacher the instant happy chef? Narcissa, suddenly any means includes good ones? Dumbledore the manipulating good guy? Regulus the two page villain turned dramatic Voldy vanquisher? Others like Ginny, Sirius, Snape, Lupin, Luna got more page time than those, imo, but were not much more developed, imo, in the ways that have been asked for over the last few pages here - the personal what is she thinking, doing, her POV on her relationship with Harry and others, etc., which we don't know about most in most cases at all, imo - principally because it was in Harry's POV. We get a bit more out of Ron and Hermione because they spoke to him more, but to me, they were the only two. Generally, when others were speaking to Harry it was topical, not about themselves enough for proper character development, imo. I think if we start asking these questions about others, it would be more apparent.

I realize it is the girl the hero ended up with - so one could legitimately say we could know more - but to me that loses some legitimacy when you consider that it was an adventure novel, not heavily romance based, imo.

Annielogic

June 26th, 2009, 10:39 am

I'm getting the timing all mixed up. Wasn't Ginny referring to when Slughorn saw her throw the bat bogey? That would have to be that year (Harry's 6th)wouldn't it? Sluggy wasn't there in 5th year. So how could Zach be weighing the joining of the DA? They had disbanded by then I thought. Am I confusing the time line?

Ah, yes, you're right. It was the Slug Club, Ginny hexed Zach, Slughorn saw it and that's how she got invited into his club.

As Zach was a member of the DA, I can still understand why he would be interested in the events. The DA may get called upon again. Why should the DA not get confided in like the year before. Plus, the other useful knowledge that could be garnered and used from the situation, as I mentioned in the other post. Neville (if I remember right) wondered if it would be started or needed again.

I can also see the other point of view, that he may well have asked what could have been valid questions in an insensitive manner, which upset Ginny. Which does fit with his characterisation previously shown.

We aren't shown in a concrete factual way, it's rather given a quick overview in the re-telling. That's why I'm undecided about it.

Smith was asking questions about an event in which Ginny and her friends were attacked and nearly killed and the man who had sheltered her family for a year was killed. That is grossly insensitive at best.

The alone idea I would disagree with, that someone asking questions about a traumatic event automatically equals grossly insensitive. A friend of mine was going through a traumatic, stressful time. I approached her, because she clearly was having difficulties in talking about and dealing with it. I had to ask questions, I chose to try and help, support and just be there for my friend, that wasn't "grossly insensitve" to try and support her.

If Zach was merely being nosy and non-supportive, then yes I totally agree with you.

The point I was trying to make is we have no real concrete scene to judge by, the incident is revealed in broad brush strokes in the re-telling, from a single person's point of view. Someone we know who can be feisty and a bit short tempered. It is highly likely Zach was being insensitive and rude, but there is a possibilty there was another side to the story and point of view to what happened.

Yoana

June 26th, 2009, 10:41 am

These are my reasons for disliking her too. However, birdi is right as well. I have seen those comments that she is describing and they are rather unpleasant to read even for someone who isn't a Ginny fan.

Oh, I see. I'd never seen such comments, maybe because this is the only HP forum I visit, and you won't find those here. Thanks for explaining, I'll edit my post.

I think though, that JKR tried to sell a number of characters to her readers in that way - or certain aspects of the characterizations. Some in an even quicker fashion, imo: Kreacher the instant happy chef? Narcissa, suddenly any means includes good ones? Dumbledore the manipulating good guy? Regulus the two page villain turned dramatic Voldy vanquisher? Others like Ginny, Sirius, Snape, Lupin, Luna got more page time than those, imo, but were not much more developed, imo, in the ways that have been asked for over the last few pages here - the personal what is she thinking, doing, her POV on her relationship with Harry and others, etc., which we don't know about most in most cases at all, imo - principally because it was in Harry's POV. We get a bit more out of Ron and Hermione because they spoke to him more, but to me, they were the only two. Generally, when others were speaking to Harry it was topical, not about themselves enough for proper character development, imo. I think if we start asking these questions about others, it would be more apparent.

I realize it is the girl the hero ended up with - so one could legitimately say we could know more - but to me that loses some legitimacy when you consider that it was an adventure novel, not heavily romance based, imo.

As I said, that was just my personal perception of Ginny's character, and I see no point in debating it - it's an opinion, not something you disprove by pointing out evidence to the contrary.

Lunatic

June 26th, 2009, 1:52 pm

Ginny is the only HP character I dislike. I have never in my life been a shipper. I am so definitely NOT misogynist. My reason for disliking her is that she does nothing for me as a character. I find her uncovinving, blatantly endowed with every admirable quality JKR could think of, and generally very poorly written. It feels like JKR overdid it in her effort to sell Ginny to her readers. Now that's just my personal perception of the character and I readily accept that there are many fans who identify with Ginny, enjoy her character and have no problem relating to her - but for me, personally, she's just bad writing.

This my reason for disliking her and always has been.

I think this is the number one primary reason people dislike Ginny.

I agree with this but their is one thing to keep in mind, we are reading through Harry-vision. Cho for example, was perfect from books three through the first third of book five. Then she literally becomes a crybaby who can't win a quiditch game against a second string seeker. As someone who really was pulling for "anyone but Ginny" I really hoped the "bad writing" was just a sign of a bad relationship.

All the Best,

Lunatic

meesha1971

June 26th, 2009, 3:57 pm

Why? That would have been a nice message to send and it would have been realistic as well, since most girls are average looking and of a normal popularity.

But to the boy who is attracted to them, they are more beautiful than anyone else. Harry's perception is a big factor in all that.

I didn't get that vibe at all. She enjoyed harming people in general, not just children.

That's exactly what I said. :huh: She didn't care if it was an adult or a child - she liked hurting people.

His personality would be that of a brave and compassionate boy just like many other boys from Hogwarts. The whole point of the books was that Harry was a normal teenage boy and not someone extraordinary. Readers were supposed to relate to him. Harry is average. What made him special was that Voldemort chose him as his equal.

I would say that made his life tragic - not special. However, the qualities that Ginny liked about Harry - his "saving people thing", being the type of person who wouldn't be happy leaving others to take care of his business, etc... Those are qualities that Harry would have had regardless.

That's understandable but the point was that they got along even before Ron realized who he was.

Actually, they didn't - they hadn't really spoken yet. Ron asked if he could sit in that compartment and Harry said he could. Ron sat there awkwardly - looked at Harry and then looked away quickly pretending he hadn't. Then the twins came in and introduced them. Then Ron blurted out "Are you really Harry Potter?" and they started talking from there.

I was replying to your comment about how Bellatrix would certainly give her life for Voldemort as she would give her children to him. That was a contradiction to what you said earlier about her being the anti mother.

How so? I consider her being willing to sacrifice her children to Voldemort as part of the reason she can be viewed as an anti-mother.

There is no indication in the text that they knew as far as I remember.

They knew why Harry was there without him telling them. They knew what Harry had done without him telling them. I felt that it was clear that they had been watching over him and knew everything.

Harry is not the only person who talks in the books.

He is the only one letting us know what other people are saying. His perception of what is going on around him is significant in that regard. We don't know what other people thought of Ginny before OOTP - apart from her family and Hermione - because he never paid that much attention.

No other character becomes hot and popular. And Ginny did change. There was no indication of her being pretty or popular in the first four books. Her Quidditch skills came from nowhere as well.
I know we are supposed to think that Harry fell for her because he got to know her better but it sends the wrong message to have Ginny become the prom queen right before Harry discovers he has feelings for her.

As I said before, I'm not sure where you're getting that from because that's not what was shown in the books, IMO. Ginny wasn't the prom queen - she was a somewhat attractive girl who was good at Quidditch like the rest of her family. She was well liked among her peers, but not the most popular girl in school. She didn't have an opportunity to play Quidditch for Gryffindor prior to OOTP - neither did Ron for that matter. Wood never held tryouts - he kept the same team for three years - and they didn't play Quidditch in GOF because of the tournament. Her brothers never let her play with them. That was explained in OOTP - Ginny sneaked to borrow their brooms and practice flying without them being aware of it from the age of 6.

Ginny never changed. It was only Harry's perception of her that changed because he started paying attention to her and learning more about her. As I said before, that was deliberate - Ginny was kept in the background on purpose so Harry wouldn't really notice her until OOTP. That was the construct of that aspect of the story. There is information given so the reader can get a good idea of what Harry is missing due to him not paying attention, but it had to be presented in a manner that showed Harry didn't really know much about her.

What exactly was the point of hat scene if not to convince the reader that Ginny is a hottie? I doubt the point was to show us that Blaise doesn't like her. What was the point of Amycus calling her pretty? What was the point of having the street beggar call her pretty?

How does that scene convince anyone that Ginny is a hottie? Honestly, I saw it as just the opposite because it came across that Pansy was mocking Ginny - not complimenting her. That scene demonstrates prejudice from all three of them. Blaise essentially says that Ginny is ugly as far as he's concerned because she's a blood traitor and Pansy is very pleased by it.

There was no point to Amycus calling her pretty because he wasn't complimenting her looks - as I said before, that would be like the Wicked Witch of the West saying "I'll get you my pretty" to Dorothy. It's not a compliment because it's not a reference to whether they are attractive or not.

There's no point to the street beggar either - he was trying to make a sale so it's realistic for him to be complimentary whether he believes what he's saying or not. He would have said the same to Eloise Midgen's mother in spite of the poor girl having severe acne and being considered unattractive. He doesn't care what they look like - he just wants their money.

Yes, that was probably the reason why we didn't see her sense of humour. But my point was that we didn't see it. The reason doesn't matter, IMO.

The reason matters because that was something that Harry could not see until it was time for him to notice Ginny within the construct of the story. As such, the reader can't see it either. That's how this type of construct works.

How much time do they need to recover from the shock? Voldemort asks the question waits a few moments and then adds "No volunteers."

I'd say longer than the few seconds Voldemort waited. :lol:

In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to compare the love of one's children with the love of one's lover. I saw nothing wrong with Bella's love for Voldemort to be honest while Molly sometimes disappoints as a mother.

I thought Molly was a fabulous mother myself - she's not perfect, but that's what makes her such a wonderfully, well rounded character, IMO. Molly is like a combination of the best parts of all the important women in my life - my mother and both of my grandmothers.

I found Bellatrix's obsession with Voldemort quite perverse because it was all tangled up with her pure-blood supremacy ideology and the enjoyment she derived from causing people pain.

However, that was not the comparison made. There are two separate comparisons that can be seen there. Some readers saw it as mother vs. anti-mother - Jo saw it as pure love vs. perverse love - they are two separate concepts.

He doesn't need any. All he needs is lust.

He didn't feel that either. And he was rather mocking towards people who did - that was pretty clear in what he said about Snape desiring Lily. He considered that type of thing beneath him.

Honestly, I'd bet he'd never been intimate in any way with anyone in his entire life.

No, that makes her a Death Eater obsessed with blood purity. I think it's important to make a distinction between Bella's "love" for Voldemort and Bella's dedication to him and the cause.

I didn't see any such distinction made. That's part of why it was so perverse - as I said above. Bellatrix's obsessive love from Voldemort stemmed from her view of him as their "master" and seeing him as the means to enforce that ideology on the rest of the wizarding world.

It's really upsetting when Ginny fans accuse people of being somehow prejudiced against her because they are disgruntled shippers. For all I care, Harry could have married Ron Weasley at the end and it wouldn't have mattered to me. Nor do I "have it in" for Ginny for any reason. It's nothing personal. I'm mostly bother by how she was written and by the message she sends then I am by what she does in the series or by her personality. I have absolutely nothing invested in any ship concerning Harry, Hermione or Ron.

Well, I wasn't referring to shippers specifically - though many of them do have it in for Ginny because they preferred another ship. But that's not the only way a person can be invested in a character and be disappointed that what they wanted didn't happen. Some wanted Harry to die and stay dead. Others wanted Harry to end up alone - or meet someone outside of his circle of friends after the fighting was all over. Some of the more radical feminists can't stand Ginny because she didn't conform to their extreme views. Some were annoyed because they expected more of Ginny's character in DH due to Jo's comment about Ginny being powerful.

Those two things are completely uncconected. I don't like something because others hate it nor do I hate something because others like it. I think she was joking when she said that.

She wasn't saying that some would love it because other's loathed it - or vice versa. She was simply referring to diversity of opinion. One man's trash is another man's treasure. What one person loves, another person will loathe - not because the other person loves it, but simply because it's not what they wanted to see. The point being - it was not feasible for Jo to please every single fan out there and she knew that. Some were going to love it and some were going to loathe it no matter what. There's no such thing as universal appeal.

Did she know that, though? She wasn't there when they said it.

She was there when Ron said she was the best when they escaped from the Inquisitor Squad.

Yes, that's true. But her motivation for wanting Voldemort stopped may have more to do with her family's wellbeing than with the wellbeing of Muggleborns. I don't see how these two things contradict each other. She fought, knowing it would put her family in danger but she saw it as a risk worth taking for her children's future.

For everyone's future - not just her children's. Your original argument was that the only thing Molly cared about was her children. If that were the case, then she would not have considered putting their lives in danger worth the risk, IMO. In that event, she would be more likely to pack up her kids and leave the country.

Molesting?? He was asking her questions. Why is it bad that he is trying to find out the facts of what happened to Harry and Voldemort? Harry and co. are asking these students to conspire and act against an authority figure, Umbridge and the Ministry. Yet, I get the feeling these same students aren't allowed to ask questions or verify what is happening, when they are being asked to follow another authority figure, Dumbledore or when signing Hermione's dreaded parchement. Asking questions seems reasonable to me, especially if there is big trouble on the horizon.

Zacharias wasn't characterized as someone who was just curious. He was characterized as an antagonistic jerk who wouldn't shut up until he was threatened or made to shut up. He didn't go to that meeting because he was interested in the DA - he was there because he wanted to hear Harry explain what happened to Cedric first hand. And that was none of his business - it was a traumatic event for Harry and expecting Harry to relive that to satisfy his own morbid curiosity was callous and rude. Harry was right to call him on that because what he said was true - if Zacharias didn't believe Dumbledore then he wasn't going to believe Harry. He just wanted to hear the gory details.

That characterization fits with how Ginny explained what happened on the train - he was antagonizing her the same way he antagonized Harry in that first DA meeting. Wanting her to give him all the gory details of a traumatic event that was none of his business - most of which she wouldn't know anyway because she was stunned before the Order arrived.

Zacharias was shown to have a personal grudge against Harry - though Jo never went into detail about why he hated Harry so much so we can only speculate as to the reasons. Perhaps he was good friends with Cedric and blamed Harry for his death.

Probably, as Ginny was at the Ministry. Cho wasn't, so I don't understand her inclusion in the list of people who knew as much about it as Ginny, but less about it than Hermione. :hmm:

Well, considering that Harry and Neville were the only ones left standing in the end, none of the others would know all that much. And Harry was the only one present when Voldemort actually showed up. So none of them would have been able to answer questions about everything that happened. Most people would want to know about Voldemort and none of them would have known the details.

I think this is the number one primary reason people dislike Ginny.

I agree with this but their is one thing to keep in mind, we are reading through Harry-vision. Cho for example, was perfect from books three through the first third of book five. Then she literally becomes a crybaby who can't win a quiditch game against a second string seeker. As someone who really was pulling for "anyone but Ginny" I really hoped the "bad writing" was just a sign of a bad relationship.

All the Best,

Lunatic

I think everything being presented from Harry's perspective is a significant point though. I don't see that as bad writing because it was a major limitation on what could be shown. Harry couldn't really get to know Ginny until OOTP so that meant the reader didn't get to know her very well either. There is information given in the first four books to show that Harry's perception of Ginny is wrong, but we can't see her true personality until Harry does.

I thought it was very well done myself. Considering the major limitations of presenting everything from Harry's perspective, Ginny is a remarkably well developed character, IMO. We learn more about Ginny, Neville, and Luna over the course of OOTP and HBP than we do about Hermione in all seven books.

Annielogic

June 26th, 2009, 4:11 pm

Zacharias was shown to have a personal grudge against Harry - though Jo never went into detail about why he hated Harry so much so we can only speculate as to the reasons. Perhaps he was good friends with Cedric and blamed Harry for his death.

I think you've partly hit the nail on the head why I'm so unsure about the characterisation of Zach Smith because we aren't really shown why he is acting this way. If he possibly blamed Harry for Cedric's death or didn't really believe what Harry or Dumbledore said happened, then maybe his opinion changed after the Ministry admitted Voldemort was indeed back. It's a bit difficult to judge a character's actions and their intentions, if there's so little to go on why they're acting that way, or if there's even a change in their thinking.

I guess it's as you say it's just part of his characterisation, considering how he acts in future situations.

I still don't particulary like that Ginny hexed him, and instead of being cautioned about her temper or told an alternate way of dealing with difficult situations, for example, it felt like she basically got rewarded by being accepted into Slughorn's club.

meesha1971

June 26th, 2009, 4:45 pm

I think you've partly hit the nail on the head why I'm so unsure about the characterisation of Zach Smith because we aren't really shown why he is acting this way. If he possibly blamed Harry for Cedric's death or didn't really believe what Harry or Dumbledore said happened, then maybe his opinion changed after the Ministry admitted Voldemort was indeed back. It's a bit difficult to judge a character's actions and their intentions, if there's so little to go on why they're acting that way, or if there's even a change in their thinking.

I guess it's as you say it's just part of his characterisation, considering how he acts in future situations.

I don't think Zacharias was ever meant to be all that deep as a character. Not after reading DH anyway. I did think prior to DH that there might be something to his irrational hatred towards Harry that would be significant to the story and I did wonder for a while if he might be one of those students from the other houses with Death Eater connections Jo alluded to back in 2005. But none of that turned out to be significant so I think Zacharias was just a very simplistic character who was exactly what he appeared to be - an antagonistic jerk.

I think that characterization is what made him the perfect choice for this scene with Ginny. It wasn't something Harry was going to see so it needed to be someone that the reader had already seen behaving in an antagonistic manner in regards to Harry - being pushy, callous, and rude about the whole thing. Knowing that this is how he was characterized allows for a simple explanation from Ginny that reveals the truth without the need for elaborate explanation or Harry going into a pensieve for it to be believable. He antagonized her and she reacted emotionally.

I still don't particulary like that Ginny hexed him, and instead of being cautioned about her temper or told an alternate way of dealing with difficult situations, for example, she basically got rewarded by being accepted into Slughorn's club.

I think that is more of a reflection of Slughorn's character than Ginny's. That was a deliberate move on Jo's part to emphasize that Slughorn was a superficial man who was more interested in building connections with people he viewed as powerful, already having good connections of their own, or having the potential to make good connections in the future. He liked to foster a relationship with them as students to establish a firm connection to them when they reached success as an adult.

What he did with Ginny in this instance is a perfect example of that - and it was something that both Harry and Ginny were able to recognize. Ginny was sure she would get into trouble for hexing Zacharias - she knew that it was wrong for her to lose her temper and she expected punishment. Any other teacher would have punished her for that. But all Slughorn saw was Ginny performing "the most marvelous Bat-Bogey Hex" - assessing her talent and potential prospects of success and how he could use that rather than disciplining her for poor behavior.

I would agree that Ginny was glad she got a reprieve there - nobody wants to be punished even when you know you did something wrong - but I wouldn't say that she saw that as a reward. Like Harry, she didn't think much of the Slug Club or Professor Slughorn. I think she probably would have had more respect for him if he had disciplined her rather than ignoring what she did wrong for such a superficial reason.

Then again, having to sit through that Slug Club meeting on the train can be viewed as a punishment considering she really didn't want to be part of it - though that certainly wasn't Slughorn's intention. :lol:

Trixa

June 26th, 2009, 10:07 pm

But to the boy who is attracted to them, they are more beautiful than anyone else. Harry's perception is a big factor in all that.
I believe that is a misconception about falling in love. Just because you like somebody doesn’t mean you think they look like supermodels. People should be loved for who they are, not put on a piedestal and considered perfect. They should be loved despite their flaws not in ignorance of them.

She didn't care if it was an adult or a child - she liked hurting people.

You said she liked torturing children in particular and compared her to Fenrir Greyback.

I would say that made his life tragic - not special. However, the qualities that Ginny liked about Harry - his "saving people thing", being the type of person who wouldn't be happy leaving others to take care of his business, etc... Those are qualities that Harry would have had regardless.
He would, but Ginny would not have got any chance to see them if it hadn’t been for Voldemort. Who knows how many other boys from Hogwarts would have been just as heroic as Harry if not more so if faced with the circumstances.

How so? I consider her being willing to sacrifice her children to Voldemort as part of the reason she can be viewed as an anti-mother.
You said two things: first, that she would definitely give her life for him as she would give him her children. Second, that she is an anti mother so children don’t matter to her anyway. If children mean nothing to her then her sacrificing them doesn’t actually mean anything.
Besides, her saying that she would have given up her sons for Voldemort comes across as a joke of compared to Lily’s joy and pride when seeing Harry going to his death.

He is the only one letting us know what other people are saying.
Are you suggesting that Harry is hallucinating?:lol:

Ginny never changed. It was only Harry's perception of her that changed because he started paying attention to her and learning more about her. As I said before, that was deliberate - Ginny was kept in the background on purpose so Harry wouldn't really notice her until OOTP. That was the construct of that aspect of the story.
That’s the construct I didn’t like. That was my problem from the beginning. I don’t care about how they supposedly spent wonderful moments at the Burrow where Harry realized that Ginny was very funny and that he liked spending time with her. What I got to see was a chest monster and numerable mentions of Ginny’s good looks. I agree that Harry and Ginny's personalities were compatible but that isn't enough for them to have a healthy and happy relationship. They needed to dig a bit deeper than that and bond in a different way. A lot fo people get along great but they can't make their relationship work because they don't know how to do that.

How does that scene convince anyone that Ginny is a hottie? Honestly, I saw it as just the opposite because it came across that Pansy was mocking Ginny - not complimenting her. That scene demonstrates prejudice from all three of them. Blaise essentially says that Ginny is ugly as far as he's concerned because she's a blood traitor and Pansy is very pleased by it.

There was no point to Amycus calling her pretty because he wasn't complimenting her looks - as I said before, that would be like the Wicked Witch of the West saying "I'll get you my pretty" to Dorothy. It's not a compliment because it's not a reference to whether they are attractive or not.

There's no point to the street beggar either - he was trying to make a sale so it's realistic for him to be complimentary whether he believes what he's saying or not. He would have said the same to Eloise Midgen's mother in spite of the poor girl having severe acne and being considered unattractive. He doesn't care what they look like - he just wants their money.

But you haven’t answered my question: why were those scenes written that way? Why did JKR bother to have these characters mention Ginny’s looks if not to convince the readers that she is pretty? What I think is forgotten sometimes during these discussion is that the HP universe is fictional and thus all the circumstances and events are created by JKR and they are done so with a purpose. Blaise, the beggar, Amycus don’t have a mind of their own, they channel Rowling.

I'd say longer than the few seconds Voldemort waited.
There’s no indication in the book that they were too stunned to answer. I don’t understand why you don’t accept this point, to be honest.

I thought Molly was a fabulous mother myself - she's not perfect, but that's what makes her such a wonderfully, well rounded character, IMO.
Molly only liked her kids when they were doing what she wanted them to. She constantly compared all her kids to Percy who was the apple of her eye until he turned his back on her. She made Ron feel insecure about her love for him and gave Harry Gideon’s watch even though he wasn’t even family. She berates her husband in public and tells the twins that they are nothing compared to Percy. Maybe some of these scenes were supposed to be humourous but to me they seemed rather tragic.

However, that was not the comparison made. There are two separate comparisons that can be seen there. Some readers saw it as mother vs. anti-mother - Jo saw it as pure love vs. perverse love - they are two separate concepts.
That was the comparison JKR made and possibly some readers as well. Both comparisons are equally offensive, IMO.

He didn't feel that either. And he was rather mocking towards people who did - that was pretty clear in what he said about Snape desiring Lily. He considered that type of thing beneath him.
He wasn’t mocking anyone, he was just stating a fact. Or what he thought was a fact. I am glad Voldemort says that actually because it shows that he can make the distinction between a purely physical relationship and love. It shows that he understands things like this and supports the Bella/Voldy connection that some people saw.

The relationship between Bella and Voldemlort is subtle. One has to read between the lines in order to get it but that’s why it was so well written, IMO. There were hints, here and there but nothing obvious, like a kiss or anything like that. Voldemort’s reaction to Bellatrix’s death is probably the most prominent one. They are a good match in terms of personality as well. They both complete each other and balance each other out in some strange way.

I didn't see any such distinction made. That's part of why it was so perverse - as I said above. Bellatrix's obsessive love from Voldemort stemmed from her view of him as their "master" and seeing him as the means to enforce that ideology on the rest of the wizarding world.
She cared about him because of what he represented, I agree, but she behaved just like any other loyal Death Eater would. The fact that she killed people was as much for the cause as it was for Voldemort himself. Her treatment of Andromeda has nothing to do with Voldemort but rather with her obsession for blood purity. Many people think Bellatrix is only involved with *** cause because she loves Voldemort but they forget that she was raised in a family of pureblood supremacists. The Cause existed way before Voldemort was even born so the battle between purebloods and muggleborns is more Bella's battle than Voldemort's. Voldemort seems more focused on making himself immortal.

For everyone's future - not just her children's. Your original argument was that the only thing Molly cared about was her children. If that were the case, then she would not have considered putting their lives in danger worth the risk, IMO. In that event, she would be more likely to pack up her kids and leave the country.
But why do you think she was in the Order? When was she shown caring about anything else than her family? She was never shown caring about Muggleborns or having such values at all. To me she never seemed like a particularly tolerant person. I don't mean that Molly was a pureblood supporter but rather than she didn't seem very interested in these kinds of issues.

Yoana

June 26th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Molly [...] gave Harry Gideon’s watch even though he wasn’t even family.

I loved this moment. I think it's great that she could part with such a family valuable to someone who was not family. I think this really made the point about the Weasleys being generous, because the most natural thing in the world is to love your family. It's no big feat, and frankly, I find the glorification of the family as the ultimate thing to love and aspire to almost to the exclusion of everything else a bit disturbing. I found it very touching that Molly gave her dead brother's watch to Harry, and a powerful atestation of his genuine love for him, despite her not being her son.

wickedwickedboy

June 26th, 2009, 11:25 pm

But you haven’t answered my question: why were those scenes written that way? Why did JKR bother to have these characters mention Ginny’s looks if not to convince the readers that she is pretty? What I think is forgotten sometimes during these discussion is that the HP universe is fictional and thus all the circumstances and events are created by JKR and they are done so with a purpose. Blaise, the beggar, Amycus don’t have a mind of their own, they channel Rowling.

While other points were being made also in these scenes, I agree that it allowed the reader to know that she was pretty (readers don't have to be convinced, just informed by the author, imo). But I am still trying to figure out what is wrong with Ginny being pretty. Was it a bad thing also that Hermione looked beautiful and quite unlike her normal self at the Yule ball? Or that Fleur was so pretty and alluring as a veela, she turned all the men's heads? Is there something wrong with being pretty?

Pearl_Took

June 26th, 2009, 11:29 pm

While other points were being made also in these scenes, I agree that it allowed the reader to know that she was pretty (readers don't have to be convinced, just informed by the author, imo). But I am still trying to figure out what is wrong with Ginny being pretty. Was it a bad thing also that Hermione looked beautiful and quite unlike her normal self at the Yule ball? Or that Fleur was so pretty and alluring as a veela, she turned all the men's heads? Is there something wrong with being pretty?

I can't speak for Trixa, but of course there's nothing wrong with it. :lol: I think what Trixa is saying that a lot of characters commenting on Ginny's prettiness does smack of JKR deliberately highighting Ginny's physical beauty and noble qualities, to bring her into the foreground as Harry's perfect girl. :cool:

wickedwickedboy

June 26th, 2009, 11:46 pm

I can't speak for Trixa, but of course there's nothing wrong with it. :lol: I think what Trixa is saying that a lot of characters commenting on Ginny's prettiness does smack of JKR deliberately highighting Ginny's physical beauty and noble qualities, to bring her into the foreground as Harry's perfect girl. :cool:

Yeah I kind of feel it is a merry-go-round dicussion. I mean that means that being pretty (and noble) helps make Ginny perfect to readers. But Trixa's point I thought was that one didn't have to be pretty (or noble) to be a perfect girl to readers. So I guess I am asking why it makes a difference whether JKR goes with pretty and noble rather than unattractive and not particularly noble - since both can characterize a perfect girl for Harry?

superduperboard

June 27th, 2009, 5:10 am

1. Favourite over-all character?

Hermione she is just a brilliant character, how can you not like her

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

My favorite character on the light side is Hermione, and My favorite character on the dark side is Bellatrix Lestrange

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

A character that i would like to know more about is Lily Potter

browneyedkat

June 27th, 2009, 5:37 am

1. Favourite over-all character?
Either Tonks, Luna, or Ginny. Tonks is just so quirky, I love her sense of humour and the way she can fit in with just about anyone (okay, so not exactly fit in, but seem comfortable enough). Luna is also quirky, but I love her dreaminess and her willingness to believe (I REFUSE to call this gullibility!). I love how happy she always seems to be, and how passive yet emotional at the same time. Ginny is just so cool. I love that she is sort of a tom-boy, and she has great attitude. To me, she seems like an incredibly real character - somewhat more real than the other HP characters. She is definitely flawed, but a realistic way, unlike some of the characters.
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
My favourite antagonist is Narcissa Malfoy. Not because I like her as a person, not at all - but I consider her an amazing character. She is not so simple as some characters in HP. She is on the dark side, but she clearly is not an all-over evil person. She just wants her son to be safe; she cares deeply about him. She is far from being 2-dimensional. In my opinion, it takes a lot to write such a complicated character.
3. A character you'd like to know more about?
I would have liked to hear more about Lily, Narcissa, and Bellatrix. Lily seemed to have an interesting past, however we heard so little about it. Narcissa, as I said, is so complicated, and we hardly get to learn anything of her. If we heard more about her, we could see more of her complexity, as I consider such a magnificently written character to be wasted by being used so little. Bellatrix, well, she is interesting. She seems kind of crazy, in ways, which is always something nice to learn about.

Trixa

June 27th, 2009, 12:13 pm

I loved this moment. I think it's great that she could part with such a family valuable to someone who was not family. I think this really made the point about the Weasleys being generous, because the most natural thing in the world is to love your family. It's no big feat, and frankly, I find the glorification of the family as the ultimate thing to love and aspire to almost to the exclusion of everything else a bit disturbing. I found it very touching that Molly gave her dead brother's watch to Harry, and a powerful atestation of his genuine love for him, despite her not being her son.
Isn't it weird, though, that she gave it to him? If my mother would give something as valuable as that to my best friend instead of me I think I would be a bit jealous.

I can't speak for Trixa, but of course there's nothing wrong with it. I think what Trixa is saying that a lot of characters commenting on Ginny's prettiness does smack of JKR deliberately highighting Ginny's physical beauty and noble qualities, to bring her into the foreground as Harry's perfect girl.

Yeah I kind of feel it is a merry-go-round dicussion. I mean that means that being pretty (and noble) helps make Ginny perfect to readers. But Trixa's point I thought was that one didn't have to be pretty (or noble) to be a perfect girl to readers.

You're both right, actually. Ginny's prettiness is too emphasized in the books, especially in HBP, in my opinion. She doesn't have to be extremely pretty in order for her to be good enough for Harry or for the readers. I don't think too many readers would have been upset if Harry got paired up with an average looking girl as he is rather average looking himself. I also think most girls are pretty so that's why I sometimes refer to Ginny is being hot. Pretty=average for me but hot is something more than just pretty.

So I guess I am asking why it makes a difference whether JKR goes with pretty and noble rather than unattractive and not particularly noble - since both can characterize a perfect girl for Harry?

First, what do you mean by "noble"? Second, there is absolutely no problem with Harry being paired up with a good looking girl. However... saying that she's pretty *once* is quite enough in my opinion. Saying that she's pretty three times in the same book is a bit much and it makes me think that JKR is trying to make sure the readers understand that Harry isn't dating an average looking girl as though that would be a bad thing.

wickedwickedboy

June 27th, 2009, 5:08 pm

You're both right, actually. Ginny's prettiness is too emphasized in the books, especially in HBP, in my opinion. She doesn't have to be extremely pretty in order for her to be good enough for Harry or for the readers. I don't think too many readers would have been upset if Harry got paired up with an average looking girl as he is rather average looking himself. I also think most girls are pretty so that's why I sometimes refer to Ginny is being hot. Pretty=average for me but hot is something more than just pretty.

First, what do you mean by "noble"? Second, there is absolutely no problem with Harry being paired up with a good looking girl. However... saying that she's pretty *once* is quite enough in my opinion. Saying that she's pretty three times in the same book is a bit much and it makes me think that JKR is trying to make sure the readers understand that Harry isn't dating an average looking girl as though that would be a bad thing.

I don't really know what Pearl meant by noble in this context - perhaps a girl with a good heart?

I do understand what you are saying now about Ginny being pretty and popular. I never thought of it as a put down on average girls while reading. I guess because I was thinking along the lines of JKR making Ginny pretty much like Lily, also pretty and popular according to her - and Potter men like the fiesty red heads. In conclusion, I suppose JKR confirming that Ginny was pretty and popular doesn't really make a difference to me. I don't really think JKR meant to say that average looking girls were not good enough, although I understand why you might see it that way. :)

Meiko

June 30th, 2009, 1:51 pm

Second, there is absolutely no problem with Harry being paired up with a good looking girl. However... saying that she's pretty *once* is quite enough in my opinion. Saying that she's pretty three times in the same book is a bit much and it makes me think that JKR is trying to make sure the readers understand that Harry isn't dating an average looking girl as though that would be a bad thing.

Well, you've got to understand that the books are taken almost entirely from Harry's viewpoint. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say. It's surprising how amazing an average-looking guy or girl seem to look when you're in love with them. Harry describes looking at Ginny as similar to trying to look at a very bright light (or something like that) in the bedroom scene in DH. Just in my experience, I've found that a guy who might look downright ugly in the usual sense actually became handsome in my eyes after a while of getting used to his face and then falling in love with him later on (for his personality, note, which is what attracts Harry to Ginny - see Dd's funeral).

ActingDude17

July 1st, 2009, 2:42 am

1. Favorite over-all character?

Hermione. I'm practically in love with her.

2. Favorite character on the side of the light/dark?

Light = Professor McGonagall, Dark = Narcissa Malfoy. Unlike with her sister Bellatrix, we're actually able to SYMPATHIZE with Narcissa.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

Pansy Parkinson. What makes her so nasty? Is it her home life?

Aquamarine14_9

July 5th, 2009, 9:39 pm

1. Favourite over-all character?
2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
3. A character you'd like to know more about?

1. I like Hermione the best. We don't really know enough about the other female characters to make a valid comparison to Hermione

2. Dark: Bellatrix Black, for sure. She is so interesting. Such a loose cannon, partially psychotic and without a conscience but I've always gotten the feeling that there's a bit more depth in there.
Light: Luna Lovegood, she's hilarious and eccentric

3. I'd like to know more about Narcissa Malfoy and/or McGonagall.

steerthestars

August 27th, 2010, 1:31 am

Well, you've got to understand that the books are taken almost entirely from Harry's viewpoint. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say. It's surprising how amazing an average-looking guy or girl seem to look when you're in love with them. Harry describes looking at Ginny as similar to trying to look at a very bright light (or something like that) in the bedroom scene in DH. Just in my experience, I've found that a guy who might look downright ugly in the usual sense actually became handsome in my eyes after a while of getting used to his face and then falling in love with him later on (for his personality, note, which is what attracts Harry to Ginny - see Dd's funeral).

I love the "very bright light" description; when I liked someone and found him attractive, I also found it hard to look into his face, as if he were a "bright light." Also, we have to remember that Harry is a teenage boy. The attractiveness of girls is a pretty big deal to him and anyone else that age. Starting with the Eloise Midgen business in GoF, we see that our Trio have entered puberty and having started noticing things like that. If Harry totally didn't notice, it would hardly be realistic.

Hedpig

August 27th, 2010, 4:36 am

1. Favourite over-all character?
Luna Lovegood :) She's not mad, she's just full of fantasy. I love her dreamy, musical voice, and that she's positive in a lot of situations.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
Light/Good:Hermione. She's not just a bookworm. She's willing to break the rules (sometimes) like in CoS, when she offered to make the Polyjuice potion, while Ron and Harry were heisatant.
Dark/Bad: Bellatrix Lestrange.:) I like her just because she's "off the wall" crazy.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Marope Gaunt. I want to know how she coped giving Tom senior the love potion, and how she struggled to live with her father and brother.

Slartibartfast

August 27th, 2010, 4:44 am

1. Favourite over-all character?
Probably Luna. Shes so great. I love her weirdness. I would be friends with her. I love how she thinks outside the box.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
Goodies: Other than Luna, probably Hermione. Shes really sharp and kicks all sorts of butt.
Baddies: Narcissa Malfoy. Dunno why but she intrigues me.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Andromeda Black/Tonks She seems interesting and would love to know her story. She was a Slytherin after all.

Headless_Nick

August 27th, 2010, 4:57 am

1. Favourite over-all character?

Definitely Luna. Eccentric, funny, sweet, honest. She seems like a fun person to be around and she's not at all shy about being herself, which is a rare trait.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?

Luna's obviously my favorite female character on the light side. But, other than her, probably Cho and Hermione.

My favorite character on the dark side is Bellatrix. She's quite a character and is certainly entertaining to watch and read about, even if I wouldn't want to hang out with her. There actually aren't that many female characters on the dark side, are there? There's Bellatrix, her sister Narcissa, and I can't really think of anybody else (unless you count Pansy Parkinson or Umbridge, but they seem to be more annoying, self-serving brats than dark witches).

3. A character you'd like to know more about?

I'd love to know more about all the supposedly evil or shallow women - Umbridge, Bellatrix, Pansy Parkinson. Nobody's really as two dimensional as these women are portrayed in the books, so it would be interesting to see their backstories and what's going through their minds.

Also, I'd like to hear more about Cho after Harry dumped her. Harry was kind of mean about it. (I mean, really, Cho couldn't help that her friend snitched on the DA.)

_mollywobbles_

August 27th, 2010, 5:09 am

1. Favourite over-all Female character?
Luna. Although Molly Weasley and Tonks come a close second.

2. Favourite character on the side of the light/dark?
Light - Molly Weasley, for me she encompasses what a good mother should be.
Dark - Narcissa Malfoy, The exact opposite of Molly, although she has her redeeming qualities in the end.

3. A character you'd like to know more about?
Pansy Parkinson or Umbridge. I would like the justification behind their evilness.

GingerCat1

August 27th, 2010, 5:22 am

One thing i find particularly odd about how JKR handles the female characters is that her descriptions of them are poor at best. For instance Ron we know is tall, lanky with big hands, feet and nose and freckles. That is a pretty good description.

Hermione however we actually know very little other than her bushy hair and cucked teeth (teeth she fixes in GoF). We don't know anything about Hermione's height or weight or any other distinguishing features. Ginny is a in a similar boat as we don't know much about what she looks like either other than the fact she has red hair and people seem to think she is quite attractive.

Does anyone know why Ron has such a detailed description and yet characters like Hermione and Ginny do not?

meesha1971

August 27th, 2010, 11:06 am

Totally forgot about this thread - time to do some catch up. :lol:

I believe that is a misconception about falling in love. Just because you like somebody doesn’t mean you think they look like supermodels. People should be loved for who they are, not put on a piedestal and considered perfect. They should be loved despite their flaws not in ignorance of them.

The point being that it is a matter of perception because what a person finds attractive is subjective and their feelings for the person are part of it. Harry didn't see Ginny as a supermodel - Harry rarely thought about Ginny in terms of her looks actually. But we do know what Harry was attracted to - long hair, athletic, good sense of humor, freckles - because he tells us with his thoughts about Cho and Ginny. His preferences and feelings for Ginny are a factor because that is why he was attracted to her where other boys were not. That would apply to Michael and Dean as well - the only other boys at Hogwarts shown to be attracted to Ginny besides Harry. Their preferences and feelings are a factor in that. And, ironically, Michael Corner started dating Cho after he and Ginny broke up.

We could say the same for Ron and Hermione. From Harry's point of view, neither are described as being particularly attractive - Harry gives a basic description of Ron that gives the reader an idea of what he looks like and a bare bones description of Hermione that lets the reader know she has bushy brown hair, big teeth - and eventually brown eyes - but nothing else really. If we were reading the story from Ron's point of view, his description of Hermione would be more flattering because he is attracted to her - where Harry describes bushy hair and big teeth, Ron would probably describe her as a pretty girl with wild curls and a cute overbite. At least by their fourth year when he started becoming aware of his attraction.

Harry never put Ginny on a pedestal. He acknowledged what her flaws were and noticed the things she did that were questionable - her quick temper, the way she teased Ron, her irritation at Fleur, how stubborn she could be, the rebellious streak, lying to her mother, etc... Those are flaws and they are presented for the reader to see. Harry doesn't mind these things because of his feelings for Ginny - but to others such qualities can be irritating. What we're shown in the text is that Harry loved Ginny in spite of her flaws, IMO.

You said she liked torturing children in particular and compared her to Fenrir Greyback.

Actually, what I said was she relished the opportunity to torture children - specifically referring to the scene at the Ministry in OOTP. I don't think she particularly cared if her victims were children or adults on the whole, but she did enjoy torturing those she viewed as being weaker. To Bellatrix, Harry and his friends were easy prey.

He would, but Ginny would not have got any chance to see them if it hadn’t been for Voldemort. Who knows how many other boys from Hogwarts would have been just as heroic as Harry if not more so if faced with the circumstances.

Harry would have those qualities regardless of the existence of Voldemort though. Fighting an evil dark wizard is not the only way to be heroic. He would still be the type of person who would stand up for Neville when Draco tried to bully him. He would still be the type of person to run off to the bathroom to warn a girl he didn't particularly like very much at the time that a troll had gotten in - which was initially believed to have been a prank pulled by a student. Most likely he would still be Ron's best friend and, without the threat of Voldemort, they likely would have spent even more time together over the holidays visiting each other because Harry would have grown up in the wizarding world like Ron did - which would result in Ginny being around him more.

Likewise, that would remove the issue of Ginny having that "celebrity crush" on Harry at first and being so shy around him. Harry would have gotten to know the real Ginny a lot sooner than he did with Voldemort around so they probably would have started dating a lot sooner. Harry being viewed as a hero by the wizarding world was a hindrance because it did - to use your phrase - put him on a pedestal so that he seemed unreachable to Ginny. It was getting to know Harry for who he actually was that allowed Ginny to take Harry off that pedestal and start being herself around him.

There are all kinds of heroes even in the real world. Policemen put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. Firemen risk their lives every time they go into a burning building to see if there are people trapped in there. Big Brothers/Big Sisters who volunteer their time to help children. Teachers who genuinely care and give their time to educate. Anyone who tries to make the world a better place. Being the target of an evil Dark Wizard wasn't what made Harry a hero. It was his courage, nobility, compassion for others, standing up for what was right, and having the strength to face impossible odds simply to do the right thing.

You said two things: first, that she would definitely give her life for him as she would give him her children. Second, that she is an anti mother so children don’t matter to her anyway. If children mean nothing to her then her sacrificing them doesn’t actually mean anything.

That was the point actually. It didn't mean anything to Bellatrix because she didn't care. She wouldn't be sacrificing anything because it wouldn't matter to her. That's what makes her saying she would gladly give up her children if she had any so repugnant, IMO.

Besides, her saying that she would have given up her sons for Voldemort comes across as a joke of compared to Lily’s joy and pride when seeing Harry going to his death.

I think there is a huge distinction between a spirit - who was shown to know exactly what was going on - giving support and encouragement for something that had to be done to remove the parasitic piece of soul inside Harry and a woman being willing to allow her children to be killed for no other reason than to please Voldemort. Harry had a tether to life as long as Voldemort lived so there was never any danger of him not surviving that encounter with Voldemort in the forest. The spirits of James, Lily, Sirius, and Lupin were aware of that from what we're shown.

Are you suggesting that Harry is hallucinating?:lol:

No, I'm saying that he wasn't paying attention prior to OOTP and - apart from her family and Hermione - Harry has no idea what other people were saying about Ginny because he wasn't paying attention. Since Harry doesn't know what people were saying about Ginny, neither does the reader.

That’s the construct I didn’t like. That was my problem from the beginning. I don’t care about how they supposedly spent wonderful moments at the Burrow where Harry realized that Ginny was very funny and that he liked spending time with her. What I got to see was a chest monster and numerable mentions of Ginny’s good looks. I agree that Harry and Ginny's personalities were compatible but that isn't enough for them to have a healthy and happy relationship. They needed to dig a bit deeper than that and bond in a different way. A lot fo people get along great but they can't make their relationship work because they don't know how to do that.

Having compatible personalities is the corner stone of any successful relationship though. We are shown Harry and Ginny spending time together in OOTP and HBP in which they enjoyed each others company, had fun together, as well Ginny being able to comfort Harry when nobody else could. Harry thinks about Ginny in terms of how she makes him feel - not what she looks like. He liked her sense of humor, he admired her strength, he liked that she was a good Quidditch player - though he still thought that he was better, he admired her for the compassion she showed others - like Luna, Neville, and that poor girl on the battle field that she didn't even know. He considered Ginny his best source of comfort. There was a lot more to it than Harry's chest monster and a few random people calling her pretty who didn't mean it, IMO.

But you haven’t answered my question: why were those scenes written that way? Why did JKR bother to have these characters mention Ginny’s looks if not to convince the readers that she is pretty? What I think is forgotten sometimes during these discussion is that the HP universe is fictional and thus all the circumstances and events are created by JKR and they are done so with a purpose. Blaise, the beggar, Amycus don’t have a mind of their own, they channel Rowling.

They were written that way because that's what people do - it's realistic. Sleazy salesmen give false compliments in hopes of making a sale, villains frequently use the "I'll get you my pretty" approach, and jealous girls are petty and spiteful towards anyone they see as a threat for any reason. Blaise did not find Ginny attractive and was insulted by the very suggestion, Draco has no reaction, and both satisfy Pansy because she was merely being petty and spiteful to begin with. These scenes do not present Ginny as a girl who is pretty because the focus is not on what Ginny actually looks like - it's on what those people were trying to accomplish. The salesman is sleezy and opportunistic and only interested in making a sale, Amycus is condescending and trying to undermine Ginny's confidence, and Pansy is petty and spiteful.

What was the point of having Rita Skeeter describe Hermione as "stunningly pretty", a group of men hitting on her and telling her to dump Ron and come with them, or Greyback refer to her as Ron's "pretty friend"? Are we supposed to think Hermione is gorgeous and has boys tripping over their tongues just to stand next to her? Of course not, these moments are reflections of the person who said them. Rita was going for sensationalism and trying to add to the "tragic little hero" image she was painting around Harry, the guys near the alley were drunk, and Hermioen might as well have been a cheeseburger with all the trimmings as far as Greyback was concerned - she was food to him.

There’s no indication in the book that they were too stunned to answer. I don’t understand why you don’t accept this point, to be honest.

Because the text quite clearly states that "the faces around him displayed nothing but shock" - which indicates that they were all too stunned to answer. Voldemort doesn't wait for them to get over the shock because he was never looking for a volunteer - that was just for effect. The point was to humiliate Lucius.

Molly only liked her kids when they were doing what she wanted them to. She constantly compared all her kids to Percy who was the apple of her eye until he turned his back on her. She made Ron feel insecure about her love for him and gave Harry Gideon’s watch even though he wasn’t even family. She berates her husband in public and tells the twins that they are nothing compared to Percy. Maybe some of these scenes were supposed to be humourous but to me they seemed rather tragic.

Molly loves her children unconditionally. Being concerned about their behavior and performance at school or worried about what she saw as as risky career choice for the twins doesn't change that, IMO. That's what all mothers do. I love my sons dearly, but that doesn't stop me from wanting them to do the best they can and worrying about the choices they make. My parents love me, but that doesn't stop them from worrying or giving me advice on how I should do things even now. She is overprotective of her children - and sometimes goes too far with that - but that is because she loves them so much. Parents worry about their kids and they don't always understand or agree with the choices their kids make, but they still love them.

Molly didn't make Ron feel insecure. Even Ron knew that his fears were irrational - that's what fear is. She gave Harry Fabian's watch - not Gideons - because he was part of the family and she wanted him to know that. She lectures her husband when he does things that worry or frustrate her. And she never once told the twins they were nothing compared to Percy - she said they could do with taking a leaf out of Percy's book in regards to behaving themselves. That was after they had flown the car to Little Whinging to rescue Harry and she had been worried out of her mind. Molly was very proud of the twins and what they accomplished with their joke shop. Molly is a mother and that's what mothers do. I do it everyday with my own kids. She raised seven children who all turn out to be very well adjusted, intelligent, and powerful witches and wizards in their own right - as well as having a good moral compass, compassion for others, and will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. I really can't understand how anyone could think being part of such a wonderful, loving family as the Weasleys would be tragic.

That was the comparison JKR made and possibly some readers as well. Both comparisons are equally offensive, IMO.

I think both are realistic myself. The mother vs. the anti-mother is accurate and I don't see where it is offensive. Molly was a good mother who loved her children and would rather have died rather than let anything bad happen to them. Bellatrix was an insane woman who would have slit her own children's throats if she had any and Voldemort had asked her too. Bellatrix is not the "anti-mother" because she didn't want kids. Bellatrix was not opposed to having children and, from what we're shown, the only reason she didn't have children was because she spent the majority of her child-bearing years locked up in Azkaban. Bellatrix was the "anti-mother" because - for her - having children would simply have been a means to an end. Whether that was to increase the number of pure-bloods or provide Voldemort with tools he could exploit - it really wouldn't have mattered to Bellatrix.

Pure love versus perverse love is also accurate - Mollly loved her children and husband unconditionally - no matter what mistakes they made or how angry they made her at times, she still loved them and worried about them. She was a compassionate woman who cared about others. Bellatrix married a man that she didn't love simply because he was pure-blood and that's what her parents expected of her and spent the rest of her life obsessing over a man who only saw her as a useful tool simply because she thought he was powerful. She refused to acknowledge the existence of her own sister simply because she married a muggleborn - and was quite happy to murder her own niece in cold blood simply because Voldemort decided she needed to "prune" her family tree.

What it really comes down to is that Molly was a good person who understood what love is and Bellatrix was an evil person who didn't really care about anyone but herself. Good triumphed over evil.

He wasn’t mocking anyone, he was just stating a fact. Or what he thought was a fact. I am glad Voldemort says that actually because it shows that he can make the distinction between a purely physical relationship and love. It shows that he understands things like this and supports the Bella/Voldy connection that some people saw.

I think that shows the opposite actually. Snape's obsessive love for Lily went beyond just a purely physical attraction, but Voldemort was incapable of making that distinction. He was incapable of recognizing that, by breaking his promise and killing Lily, he turned Snape into an enemy. Voldemort mocked Snape's feelings for Lily because he was completely incapable of understanding love - any kind of love. He didn't feel love for anyone or anything. He didn't feel any emotional attachment to anyone or anything. He believed that such attachments were a weakness to be exploited. As Jo said, Voldemort was a psychopath - he was born with genetic flaws that rendered him incapable of understanding basic human emotions like love.

The relationship between Bella and Voldemlort is subtle. One has to read between the lines in order to get it but that’s why it was so well written, IMO. There were hints, here and there but nothing obvious, like a kiss or anything like that. Voldemort’s reaction to Bellatrix’s death is probably the most prominent one. They are a good match in terms of personality as well. They both complete each other and balance each other out in some strange way.

Do you really think that it's a good thing for a woman to be completely submissive to a man who is incapable of feeling even the most basic human emotions, treats her like a carpet to wipe his feet on, expects her to refer to him as "Master", tortures her when she makes any mistake, and orders her to kill a member of her own family simply to prove her loyalty? Not to mention Bellatrix being terrified that he would kill her when she failed. I can't agree with that. The relationship between Voldemort and Bellatrix is presented as being perverse. Bellatrix makes herself completely submissive to Voldemort's every whim. Voldemort sees Bellatrix as a useful tool to exploit. There is no balance there. Voldemort is the master - Bellatrix is the servant.

She cared about him because of what he represented, I agree, but she behaved just like any other loyal Death Eater would. The fact that she killed people was as much for the cause as it was for Voldemort himself. Her treatment of Andromeda has nothing to do with Voldemort but rather with her obsession for blood purity. Many people think Bellatrix is only involved with *** cause because she loves Voldemort but they forget that she was raised in a family of pureblood supremacists. The Cause existed way before Voldemort was even born so the battle between purebloods and muggleborns is more Bella's battle than Voldemort's. Voldemort seems more focused on making himself immortal.

The cause is part of it - Bellatrix was all for pure-blood supremacy. But she tortured and killed because she enjoyed it. She liked to "play with her food" because that was fun for her. She enjoyed torturing the Longbottoms until they lost their minds and got a kick out of rubbing that in Neville's face. She relished the prospect of doing the same to Neville. Bellatrix stands out among the Death Eaters because she is insane and her "dedication" to the cause was as much due to her enjoying torturing and killing as it was to her desire to rid the world of "mudbloods".

But why do you think she was in the Order? When was she shown caring about anything else than her family? She was never shown caring about Muggleborns or having such values at all. To me she never seemed like a particularly tolerant person. I don't mean that Molly was a pureblood supporter but rather than she didn't seem very interested in these kinds of issues.

I disagree that Molly was not shown to care about anything but her family. She stretched her meager budget to buy Harry Christmas presents simply because Ron mentioned that he wasn't expecting to get any. She took him into her home and made him part of her family. Hermione was a muggleborn and Molly took Hermione into her home and cared about her the same as she did with Harry. She worried about Harry and Hermione's safety and gave them motherly advice. She didn't have to allow Hermione to stay with them during the summer and Christmas of OOTP, the summer of HBP, and the summer of DH. She did that because she did care about Hermione and wanted to keep her safe as much as she did Harry.

She's not fascinated by muggles the way that Arthur is - most witches and wizards are not. Molly is more practical in that regard. She's not interested in learning about things that she doesn't need. She worries about Arthur's fascination because he has a tendency to break the law because of it. The flying car was illegal and he ended up being fined because of it - which certainly put a strain on their tight budget. Ron told Harry that, if the MInistry investigated Arthur's shed, he would be arrested because he had all those muggle objects that he took apart and put spells on. She lectures Arthur about using a muggle remedy like stitches because the idea of sewing your skin together sounded barbaric to her - and considering that magic can heal most cuts in an instant, that's understandable, IMO. And the stitches apparently made Arthur's wound worse because it was a magical wound infused with venom that prevented it from healing properly to begin with. That doesn't mean that she is intolerant or that she hates muggles. Not everyone wants to learn about other cultures. I couldn't tell you the first thing about how an Amish person lives or what they do, but I certainly don't hate them and I'm not intolerant of them.

If that were the case, then Molly would not have joined the Order. She would have packed up the kids - along with Harry and Hermione if she could - and went into hiding until it was all over. Molly joined the Order and participated in missions because she wanted to help make the wizarding world a safer place for everyone - muggleborns included. In turn, that would protect the muggle world as well. Joining the Order put her entire family in danger and that terrified her, but Molly was willing to to take the risk because it was the right thing to do.

Isn't it weird, though, that she gave it to him? If my mother would give something as valuable as that to my best friend instead of me I think I would be a bit jealous.

I don't think that was weird at all. Harry became part of the Weasley family the first summer he stayed with them. They all loved him and considered him to be part of the family. Fabian's watch wasn't all that valuable in terms of money - it was old and banged up and they probably wouldn't have gotten much money for it if they'd tried to sell it. Molly was embarrassed because it wasn't a new watch - they hadn't been able to afford a new one like they got for Ron the previous year. But Harry didn't see it that way. It was more valuable to Harry than it would have been to any of the Weasley kids because of what it represented. To the Weasley kids, Fabian's watch would only have been another hand-me-down - and they all had plenty of those. To Harry, it represented him being part of the family.

One thing i find particularly odd about how JKR handles the female characters is that her descriptions of them are poor at best. For instance Ron we know is tall, lanky with big hands, feet and nose and freckles. That is a pretty good description.

Hermione however we actually know very little other than her bushy hair and cucked teeth (teeth she fixes in GoF). We don't know anything about Hermione's height or weight or any other distinguishing features. Ginny is a in a similar boat as we don't know much about what she looks like either other than the fact she has red hair and people seem to think she is quite attractive.

Does anyone know why Ron has such a detailed description and yet characters like Hermione and Ginny do not?

Well, Ginny is described fairly well I think. Long red hair, pale complexion, freckles, brown eyes - Harry doesn't describe her hands and feet in detail, but she is generally presented as being somewhat petite. Though given the fact that the Weasley boys are all taller than average, that could just be because they're all huge in comparison. :lol:

Ron is the first friend that Harry ever had. They had that instant connection and bonded on that first train ride to Hogwarts. He became Harry's surrogate brother. Still, the most detailed description Harry gives of Ron is in the first book when he first meets the Weasley family and is fascinated by them. Later, he gives fairly detailed descriptions of Bill and Charlie - revealing that Bill resembled Ron and Percy and they were all tall and lanky while Charlie resembled the twins and they were slightly shorter and stockier. The Weasleys are all very similar in that they all have flaming red hair, pale complexions, and freckles. But they have different eye colors and different builds as well.

I don't really know about Hermione. Harry never really gives much detail about her beyond the bushy brown hair, big teeth - through GOF anyway, and he doesn't even mention that she has brown eyes until DH. I always wondered if Jo was doing that deliberately to show that Harry wasn't attracted to Hermione, but that is just speculation. Harry didn't describe everyone he met in detail so who knows?