Molly Weasley: Character Analysis

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I'm not saying that cloaks prevent you from properly engaging in battle, just that in Molly's opinion they certainly did. Or perhaps it was simply because that particular duel meant more to her that she made that gesture? Either way, I don't see her as an active participant prior to that duel. I think she was probably performing healing charms and firing some spells here and there but not actually engaging someone in a one on one duel. That moment seemed very important to her which is why I think it was a first.

Except that Harry refers to everyone fighting - everyone who could walk. The only exceptions for either side - which Harry noted on page - were Lucius and Narcissa. They were the only ones not fighting. Everyone else was and that would include Molly.

Of course, everyone was also fighting multiple opponents at the time because everyone was fighting all at once - there really weren't any one on one duels at that point. However, fighting multiple opponents in absolute chaos like Harry described would be more difficult than fighting a one on one duel during which everyone else stopped fighting to watch, IMO. Fighting one on one you can concentrate on a single opponent without distraction. Fighting multiple people in absolute chaos you have to concentrate on every potential threat around you, keep track of where your colleagues are so you don't accidentally hit them and can help them if they get in trouble, and stay alert to your surroundings because it is absolute chaos. So, really, I would think the one on one duel with Bellatrix with no distractions was probably easier.

Well, Tonks and Kingsley were Aurors and we know what kind of training they had to go through to qualify. Molly never had to go through that. The education she got at Hogwarts was enough for what she wanted to do with her life.

That's kind of like saying a police officer or a soldier would be the only people who would know how to use a gun simply because that's part of their training. But the reality is that many people know how to use guns in spite of having no police or military training. Many have guns and know how to use them simply because they want to be able to protect their homes and families if necessary. And if one is only going to consider trained Aurors qualified to duel, then the Death Eaters should be easy to defeat because none of them went through Auror training - neither did Voldemort for that matter.

Now, I would agree that Tonks and Kingsley being Aurors makes that easier in terms of writing - identifying them as Aurors establishes that they know how to duel whereas with other characters you would need to include other clues. However, that doesn't preclude other people knowing how to duel or being good at it. Flitwick is a teacher and never went through Auror training - and he's certainly not dueling anyone on a daily basis while teaching at Hogwarts - but he is also a dueling champion.

Molly's education at Hogwarts also included DADA so she would know how to duel. Her life has put her in situations where she would be the only one there to protect her family - it was established that during the first war, Arthur was required to put in long hours at the Ministry so Molly would have been at home, alone, with five children - all under the age of 11 - during a time when Death Eaters were invading people's homes. I think that would be a very strong incentive to keep her dueling skills sharp.

I'm sure Bellatrix enjoys duelling but she is also fighting for something more important than just plain fun, IMO. She was defending her "ideals" and to some extent, the people she loved, though indirectly. Bellatrix has more of a cause than Molly if that makes sense because her side is the one trying to change the status quo whereas the Order is only trying to prevent that from happening. They were simply reacting to what Voldemort and the DEs were throwing their way.

Well, that's the thing - Bellatrix wasn't doing that. She has no ideals - what she wants is to be able to torture and kill muggles and muggleborns without being sent to Azkaban for it. That's not an ideal, IMO. She doesn't love anyone and her first priority is herself and Voldemort - not necessarily in that order. She was obsessed with Voldemort and probably considered that love, but it was warped and twisted. Bellatrix said herself that, if she had kids, she would gladly sacrifice them for Voldemort. This is not a woman who is fighting for something, IMO. She is mostly just giving in to her cruel nature and doing what she enjoys most - torturing and killing people.

The Order - and everyone else fighting against Voldemort - are not just reacting to being attacked, IMO. They actually have something worth fighting for. It was never just an issue of the Death Eaters wanting to change the status quo so they could torture and kill anyone they wanted to. The safety and well being of their families and loved ones was an issue. Living in a world where you don't have to constantly be afraid that a genocidal cult might knock down your door to torture or kill you or people you care about, where you can walk down the street without fear of being attacked, where anyone's kids can play outside and go to school in safety - that's what they're all fighting for and they were willing to fight to the death to accomplish that.

The Death Eaters were not - their "cause" was not that important to them. When Voldemort disappeared, nearly all of them folded and pretended that they had been coerced or bewitched. They put on nice, polite faces in public and said the right things to avoid being sent to Azkaban. Bellatrix was among the few who didn't do that, but even for her it was not about a cause - she felt that she was proving her loyalty to Voldemort so that was part of her obsession with him, IMO. People like that can win some battles and even manage to take over for a short time because they are ruthless, but they can never win in the long run because they don't really understand what it means to be fighting for something - to genuinely believe in something. They may have loved ones, but it's limited and has conditions because they don't really understand what love is. They have no compassion or empathy that would drive them to protect their neighbors like people in the Order did. That's why it was inevitable that they would fail, IMO.

Bellatrix? Or do you mean Molly? Molly is the one who got lucky, IMO.

Oh, I meant Bellatrix. This wasn't a situation where Molly got lucky and caught Bellatrix off guard with a single spell. Molly openly challenged Bellatrix and fought well in an extended duel where both of them were fighting to kill. Maternal love can give someone the determination necessary and drive them to act - and this is certainly an advantage for someone like Molly - but it cannot give them the knowledge and skill necessary to win a duel like that. Knowing which spells to cast to attack or defend - being able to assess the opponent and block or dodge the spells they cast - finding that right moment to go for the kill. That's not luck - it took talent and skill for Molly to do that, IMO.

I wouldn't say she was insane, merely ruthless. Voldemort isn't exactly stable either and he is definitely a worthy opponent, to say the least. Her mental state didn't exactly keep her from winning against other characters, after all.

I would say insane - she is described as being "mad as her master" after all. Voldemort was insane as well - and that is, ultimately, what led to him essentially killing himself. His instability was a weakness that led to him make numerous mistakes. The same is true for Bellatrix, IMO. Her instability made her as much of a liability as her ruthlessness made her an asset. She was easily goaded into attacking Harry at the DoM - which would likely have destroyed the prophecy if Lucius hadn't stopped her and Voldemort would not have been very happy about that. Harry was further able to goad her into making rash and ill thought attacks when he chased her down after killing Sirius. It was only a matter of time before Bellatrix came across an opponent she couldn't defeat simply by being ruthless, IMO.

As for her other "wins" - they don't really say much, IMO. She managed to kill Sirius because he screwed up - he got cocky and she got lucky, IMO. She managed to take down four snatchers who were not particularly intelligent or cunning - rather easy prey, IMO. But she - and several others - were bested by six teenagers. She couldn't take down Hermione, Ginny, or Luna - and Ginny and Luna were both still underage. Sure, she fired a killing curse at Ginny, but she also missed and Ginny is still alive. Her "prodigious skill" and ruthlessness didn't really make Bellatrix all that formidable because she was also unstable and didn't really think before acting, IMO.

But Harry was right-- Molly is "only" a mother, that is her depiction in the books and it is constant, IMO. She never transcends that role. I think this is one of the issues in HP that her character clearly illustrates. While fathers are complex characters and sometimes have complicated relationships to their children or charges (in the case of Dumbledore and Sirius), mothers are always cosy and uncomplicated. Molly's scene with Bellatrix doesn't change anything because she is once again acting as a mother, not as an Order member of fighter in general. Yes, she has temper, she can be fierce but only her children bring out that side of her. Perhaps this was Rowling's point. In comparing Molly to Bellatrix she further elevates the character of Molly while putting down Bellatrix even more. For both characters involved the duel underlines some of their already established characteristics. Whether or not this is a good message or makes for a good read is another matter but I believe that was the purpose. The duel completes Molly's character arc but it doesn't bring anything new to the table, IMO.

I would have to disagree - mostly because there is no such thing as "only a mother", IMO. A wife and mother has to wear many different hats - it's not just wiping noses and changing diapers. There was a lot more to Molly than Harry realized and I think that's part of the significance of this moment because it is a surprise to Harry to realize that. The clues were present in the text all along for the reader, but Harry never gave it any thought. He was only around Molly for a few weeks out of the year and never considered what she was doing when the kids were not around. He never stopped to consider what it meant that Dumbledore asked Molly for support or that she joined the Order or that she was taking turns with the others to stand guard over him at Privet Dr. or that she was taking turns with the others to stand guard over the prophecy or that there were many nights during the first war where she was the only one there who could protect her family - and so on and so forth.

Molly was certainly overprotective of her children and worried about the people she cared for a lot. She was afraid for them and what would happen to them. However, I think Molly had good reason for that because of the first war and all those nights Arthur had to work so she was the only one there to protect the family if Death Eaters attacked. The only difference with the second war is that her kids were older and involved in the war - as were their friends and other people she cared about. That's certainly incentive to keep those dueling skills of hers sharp, IMO.

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

I wonder if the financial situation started picking up for the Weasleys after Ginny joined Hogwarts. They wouldn't have much expense for most of the year with the kids at Hogwarts and the rest working. It would be just the two of them. Perhaps Molly and Arthur took that into account when going for the Egypt trip.

That's possible. It was also Percy's last year at Hogwarts so they would have one less set of books and supplies to buy the following year. Plus they did save some of the money for school supplies for that year and got Ron a new wand - whereas before, he had been using Charlie's old wand.

Personally, I think taking a family vacation when you can is a good thing - particularly after all the stress and trauma they had just been through. It gave them a chance to just be together and have fun as a family - and visit with Bill. It was also educational. Likewise, I don't think the money was just spent on the trip. There's no mention of any cost for traveling. Lodging and food would have to be paid for, but I think most of what they spent probably went towards buying things for the kids - which I would also consider good because they could so rarely get them anything new. And they gave Ron money to buy Harry a birthday present.

[ShadowSonic]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

I wonder if the financial situation started picking up for the Weasleys after Ginny joined Hogwarts. They wouldn't have much expense for most of the year with the kids at Hogwarts and the rest working. It would be just the two of them. Perhaps Molly and Arthur took that into account when going for the Egypt trip.

Considering everything: They own their home, no loans or mortgages, they have 7 kids to look after, the only source of income is Arthur, etc. I'd say the Weasleys are pretty good with what money they do have and manage it pretty well. Most other families we see in HP are pretty small by comparison or just so stinking rich they can do whatever they want so the contrasts to the Weasleys don't mean much.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

But Harry was right-- Molly is "only" a mother, that is her depiction in the books and it is constant, IMO. She never transcends that role. I think this is one of the issues in HP that her character clearly illustrates. While fathers are complex characters and sometimes have complicated relationships to their children or charges (in the case of Dumbledore and Sirius), mothers are always cosy and uncomplicated.

I have to disagree on this one. Molly is seen by Harry as a mother figure, because she treats him like an adopted son, and we see that as well because we usually see Molly in a family setting at the Burrow. That doesn't mean she was written "cozy and uncomplicated", and I think the Weasley children would disagree with you as well. Molly was a force to be reckoned with at home, and we have no reason to think she was not the same in her other duties as well. Molly is an Order member, and she took turns with the others (some of them aurors) guarding at the DOM. And I think the fighting at Hogwarts and the duel with Bella can be counted as outside her maternal role. Also, in my view, I don't think that it's appropriate to suggest she needed to "transcend" her role in any way, as that seems to imply that caring for your family is somehow inferior. And I don't think that Narcissa was "cozy and uncomplicated" either.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Molly's scene with Bellatrix doesn't change anything because she is once again acting as a mother, not as an Order member of fighter in general. Yes, she has temper, she can be fierce but only her children bring out that side of her. Perhaps this was Rowling's point. In comparing Molly to Bellatrix she further elevates the character of Molly while putting down Bellatrix even more. For both characters involved the duel underlines some of their already established characteristics. Whether or not this is a good message or makes for a good read is another matter but I believe that was the purpose. The duel completes Molly's character arc but it doesn't bring anything new to the table, IMO.

If you don't consider Tonks as only "fighting as a mother", then I don't see why that should apply that to Molly either. And I don't think that Molly's "fierce" side is only brought about by her children; she was equally fierce at times with Arthur and Sirius.

There seems to be a huge problem in the discussion of Molly in general, that because she is such a caring, competent mother that anything else she also does, such as working in the Order, fighting at Hogwarts, and dueling Bella is not seen in its proper context as it would for other female or male characters. In the epilogue, the trio all have children and I think we can say that Ginny and Hermione would be caring, competent mothers. Are we now to discount anything they did prior or going forward because of it? Probably not. Molly had a life, education, training, struggles, loss, etc. before she was a mother and onward. I think it's only fair that we give the same perspective to Molly's character as we do for all the others.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by WelkinCooper

I should have phrased it plainer. I meant, she was the one who sent the Howler to Ron. It wasn't Arthur who sent it. Arthur expressed interest in how the car flew instead of lecturing the boys about it initially. Molly was the one who read them the riot act on it. So Molly is obviously the main disciplinarian in the family. Arthur seems to follow her lead.

Originally Posted by WelkinCooper

Molly's exaggerated emotional responses are perhaps more appropriately viewed as a female stereotype than an archtype.

Thanks for clarifying. However, IMO, if Molly was not the disciplinarian parent, if she had been one to go down the route of "wait till your father gets home", one could also call that a stereotype. It seems to me that if one wants to make the claim of stereotype, it's very easy to do so with a female character, no matter what they do.

Originally Posted by Sereena

They don't? I'd say they have as much to fight for as Harry's side: their lives, their political view, their freedom and also immortality (well at least for Voldie) .

They were the ones who believed they had won. They had spent the last nine months in control of the country, wreaking havoc as they wished. They didn't have the motivation that the Order, including Molly, had.

Ok, but then I'm not sure whether we are in agreement or not. My interpretation is that Molly is not only perceived as the underdog but that she actually was the underdog and won due to very special circumstances. In a formal duel agains Lestrange she would have been...eh... defeated, IMO.

The Death Eaters didn't particularly go in for formal duels with rules and guidelines, though. They went in for murder and torture, by any means possible.

We have Death Eaters who supposedly wreaked havoc and killed talented Order members, getting bested by Harry and his friends. Makes you wonder why anyone feared them in the first place.

Death Eaters who thought they could just take the prophecy, kill Harry's friends and go. They weren't expecting teenagers to stand up to them.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

To be clear, I'm not saying that Molly would always win such a duel. It's like Spike told Buffy on BtVS - all he needed to beat her was one good day. Bellatrix could have gotten lucky in that respect. But I honestly don't think Bellatrix could genuinely defeat someone like Molly. Her insanity made her ruthless and formidable, but it was also her weakness - and one rather easy to take advantage of as we see with Harry's confrontations with her.

I think it was a combination of factors. Molly had more motivation and determination than Bellatrix. Bellatrix was not taking Molly seriously. Bellatrix believed the fight was already won - she had returned to Hogwarts crowing in triumph. She probably considered this last stand a minor concern, an opportunity to shed more blood. Molly, on the other hand, was taking this very seriously - everything that mattered to her was on the line.

Originally Posted by SnapesBane

Prisoner says they used most of it on the vacation. It's still iresponsible given their financial situation, in my opinion. I know its realistic to what a lot of poor people do (chapter 1 of Prisoner says the Weasleys are "extremely poor"), but that doesn't mean I can't say it wasn't wise.

As others have mentioned, this was just after Ginny's horrific ordeal in CoS. I don't consider it irresponsible to make their child's recovery a priority. IMO, Molly and Arthur may have believed that a break would benefit the whole family, especially Ginny. Ginny was also very close to Bill and looked up to him - a visit to Bill and a break away from home would have done Ginny a lot of good after what she was subjected to.
I think they considered their child's recovery more important than material goods - that's hardly irresponsible. I think that's having their priorities in order.

Originally Posted by Sereena

The readers can certainly empathize more with Molly's side in the fight than with Bellatrix's. But that duel was not part of a larger cause, IMO, it was something personal to Molly. She was fighting to protect her child and probably not thinking too much about the greater good, as Dumbledore would say, or about her ideals (assuming she has any).

Molly was fighting for her her ideals - the safety of her children. A world where her children would not be at risk from murderous fanatics - "You will never touch our children again". Molly had already lost one child, believed she had lost a boy she loved as a son and now another child had almost been taken from her. That's going to be a heck of a motivation.

I'm sure Bellatrix enjoys duelling but she is also fighting for something more important than just plain fun, IMO. She was defending her "ideals" and to some extent, the people she loved, though indirectly. Bellatrix has more of a cause than Molly if that makes sense because her side is the one trying to change the status quo whereas the Order is only trying to prevent that from happening. They were simply reacting to what Voldemort and the DEs were throwing their way.

I don't think Bellatrix has any ideals - she is a fanatic and a sadist. She wants to be able to torture and murder freely. That's not an ideal, IMO. I think Molly and the Order had a cause - they wanted to ensure that people like Bellatrix, the Malfoys etc. could not harm innocent people. They wanted a world where they didn't have to fear for their lives on a daily basis. They wanted a world where they didn't live in dread of someone they loved being murdered.

I wouldn't say she was insane, merely ruthless. Voldemort isn't exactly stable either and he is definitely a worthy opponent, to say the least. Her mental state didn't exactly keep her from winning against other characters, after all.

Oh, I think Bellatrix wasn't playing with a full deck. She was ruthless, but she was also insane.

Perhaps this was Rowling's point. In comparing Molly to Bellatrix she further elevates the character of Molly while putting down Bellatrix even more.

Well, it would be worrying if she wanted to elevate a fanatic sadistic bigot, IMO.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Except that Harry refers to everyone fighting - everyone who could walk. The only exceptions for either side - which Harry noted on page - were Lucius and Narcissa. They were the only ones not fighting. Everyone else was and that would include Molly.

Good point - if "everyone" was fighting, then so was Molly. I doubt she would have wanted to stand at the sidelines watching her loved ones fight. Nor would she have been able to, with the chaos of battle and the DEs trying to kill her and others.

The Death Eaters were not - their "cause" was not that important to them. When Voldemort disappeared, nearly all of them folded and pretended that they had been coerced or bewitched. They put on nice, polite faces in public and said the right things to avoid being sent to Azkaban. Bellatrix was among the few who didn't do that, but even for her it was not about a cause - she felt that she was proving her loyalty to Voldemort so that was part of her obsession with him, IMO. People like that can win some battles and even manage to take over for a short time because they are ruthless, but they can never win in the long run because they don't really understand what it means to be fighting for something - to genuinely believe in something.

Good point. The DEs were fair-weather fighters. They fought and murdered and tortured when they believed they could get away with it. When they could hide behind their master. When they couldn't, they mostly went back to pretending to be decent human beings.
The Order didn't crumple and give up. They lost three leadership figures - Dumbledore, Moody, and as they believed, Harry. But they didn't give up. IMO, this shows, more than anything, that the Order were fighting for what they believed in, far far more than the DEs were.

He never stopped to consider what it meant that Dumbledore asked Molly for support or that she joined the Order or that she was taking turns with the others to stand guard over him at Privet Dr. or that she was taking turns with the others to stand guard over the prophecy or that there were many nights during the first war where she was the only one there who could protect her family - and so on and so forth.

Interesting point about the first war. I think it's possible that Molly would have kept her duelling skills fresh in case she needed them. The DEs were targetting people and nobody knew who would be next - she had motivation during the first war to know how to fight.

Molly was certainly overprotective of her children and worried about the people she cared for a lot. She was afraid for them and what would happen to them. However, I think Molly had good reason for that because of the first war and all those nights Arthur had to work so she was the only one there to protect the family if Death Eaters attacked. The only difference with the second war is that her kids were older and involved in the war - as were their friends and other people she cared about. That's certainly incentive to keep those dueling skills of hers sharp, IMO.

Good point. And Molly had more reason than most to fear for her family. She had lost her brothers to the Death Eaters. She had almost lost her daughter because of a Death Eater. Her family were close to the Death Eaters' primary target. She had plenty of reason to worry and to be overprotective.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Well, that's the thing - Bellatrix wasn't doing that. She has no ideals - what she wants is to be able to torture and kill muggles and muggleborns without being sent to Azkaban for it. That's not an ideal, IMO.

I have adressed this and your other points about Bellatrix in her character thread.

That's kind of like saying a police officer or a soldier would be the only people who would know how to use a gun simply because that's part of their training. But the reality is that many people know how to use guns in spite of having no police or military training.

Heh, maybe in the US

Her "prodigious skill" and ruthlessness didn't really make Bellatrix all that formidable because she was also unstable and didn't really think before acting, IMO.

As I have explained in Bella's own thread I think she was prodigiously skilled just like she is described. Which only makes Molly's victory against her all the more signifcant. If Molly would always be able to overpower Bellatrix then that scene would lose its intensity and message since it would no longer be about maternal power but rather about who has the greater skill.

I would have to disagree - mostly because there is no such thing as "only a mother", IMO. A wife and mother has to wear many different hats - it's not just wiping noses and changing diapers.

In reality yes. In HP however, Molly doesn't get any development besides being a mother, IMO. She is a mother in every scene she is in, with one or two exceptions. There is nothing wrong with that of course but she is rather underdeveloped as a character. That was probably so that her contrast with Bellatrix would be stronger. But Molly comes across as a stereotype, in my view, especially in that scene.

Molly was certainly overprotective of her children and worried about the people she cared for a lot. She was afraid for them and what would happen to them. However, I think Molly had good reason for that because of the first war and all those nights Arthur had to work so she was the only one there to protect the family if Death Eaters attacked.

But this is again, speculation, regardless of how plausible it may be.

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

I have to disagree on this one. Molly is seen by Harry as a mother figure, because she treats him like an adopted son, and we see that as well because we usually see Molly in a family setting at the Burrow. That doesn't mean she was written "cozy and uncomplicated", and I think the Weasley children would disagree with you as well.

Well thank God they aren't real then . Molly was a mother figure and not much more than that, IMO. Her husband Arthur is written as a more interesting character than her in my opinion because he has interests and quirks whereas she is consumed by being a mother and a wife. So is Narcissa. So is Petunia until book seven. Harry's POV is irrelevant here. Rowling is writing the books and decides how she portrays her characters. She portrayed Molly as a great matriarch figure which is once again emphasized in her duel with Bellatrix.

If you don't consider Tonks as only "fighting as a mother", then I don't see why you should apply that to Molly either. And I don't think that Molly's "fierce" side is only brought about by her children; she was equally fierce at times with Arthur and Sirius.

When arguing about how much the children should know, yes.

There seems to be a huge problem in the discussion of Molly in general, that because she is such a caring, competent mother that anything else she also does, such as working in the Order, fighting at Hogwarts, and dueling Bella is not seen in its proper context as it would for other female or male characters.

But what is the proper context for that duel if not maternal concern and the desire to protect?

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Well, it would be worrying if she wanted to elevate a fanatic sadistic bigot, IMO.

Why elevate either of them though? I don't think either of them make a great role model, to be honest.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Sereena

Well thank God they aren't real then. Molly was a mother figure and not much more than that, IMO. Her husband Arthur is written as a more interesting character than her in my opinion because he has interests and quirks whereas she is consumed by being a mother and a wife. So is Narcissa. So is Petunia until book seven. Harry's POV is irrelevant here. Rowling is writing the books and decides how she portrays her characters. She portrayed Molly as a great matriarch figure which is once again emphasized in her duel with Bellatrix.

In my view, Molly is more than a "mother figure". We learn of the early loss of her brothers killed by the DE's in the first war. From what we know of Molly's personality and her fierce determination, it's likely that she paid a great deal of attention to strengthening her skills, both defensive and dueling. She is more than adept at managing the family's finances. She joined the Order for the 2nd war, and was given the same type of duties as the aurors, which implies she can more than hold her own. She fights in the battle at Hogwarts, and she duels Bella to the death. These are skills and abilities beyond caring for her family. To suggest that Molly joined the Order, fought and dueled Bella only for her family, is, I think, inaccurate. While Molly's confrontation with Bella was sparked by the AK that nearly hit Ginny, Molly was also fighting on the principle of what was right, to stop Voldemort in defense of wizarding society.

Originally Posted by Sereena

But what is the proper context for that duel if not maternal concern and the desire to protect?

In my view the proper context is that Molly is skilled enough for Dumbledore to ask her to join the Order, and the Order members are comfortable with assigning Molly to guard duty at the DOM, she fights along with everyone else at Hogwarts, and she duels Bella. These are not maternal skills. The only one which can reasonably be seen as motivated by protection of family is her intervention in the duel with Bella. The other activities are not.

In my opinion, the proper context is to see Molly's abilities that are separate from her role as mother -- just as Tonks is not described as fighting at Hogwarts because she is a mother, or any other witch present (mother or not) who was fighting the DE's. I believe you have posted that you think that Molly was not really fighting but only working in the background doing healing spells -- just because there isn't much on-page description of her fighting except when she challenged Bella -- yet the assumption is that Tonks was fighting the entire time, even though there's not much on-page for her, either. In my view, that is not a proper context.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

In my view, Molly is more than a "mother figure". We learn of the early loss of her brothers killed by the DE's in the first war. From what we know of Molly's personality and her fierce determination, it's likely that she paid a great deal of attention to strengthening her skills, both defensive and dueling. She is more than adept at managing the family's finances. She joined the Order for the 2nd war, and was given the same type of duties as the aurors, which implies she can more than hold her own. She fights in the battle at Hogwarts, and she duels Bella to the death. These are skills and abilities beyond caring for her family. To suggest that Molly joined the Order, fought and dueled Bella only for her family, is, I think, inaccurate. While Molly's confrontation with Bella was sparked by the AK that nearly hit Ginny, Molly was also fighting on the principle of what was right, to stop Voldemort in defense of wizarding society.

I agree. While Harry tends to only think of Molly as a mother figure, there are references in the text that demonstrate that there was much more to Molly than that. We learn that her brothers were killed in the first war and, in DH, we see that she was close to them when she gives Fabian's watch to Harry for his birthday. The fact that Fabian's watch was passed to her is significant and gives us a glimpse of Molly as a sister. We are given glimpses into the romantic side of Arthur and Molly's relationship - outside of them being parents. We see Molly discussing politics with Arthur and Dumbledore in regards to Fudge's inadequacies - not as a mother, but as a concerned citizen. We see Dumbledore turn to Molly for support after Fudge refuses to listen when Voldemort returned. We learn that Molly joined the Order was given dangerous assignments that would potentially require her to duel Death Eaters.

We also see Molly in charge of dealing with the removal of dangerous magical creatures and objects enchanted with Dark Magic in OOTP. While Snape may have taunted Sirius about doing nothing but "cleaning", even Harry realized that they were actually waging war on the house. Poisonous doxies, clothes enchanted to strangle people, etc... Molly demonstrated both knowledge and skill of DADA in taking care of those things and instructing the kids how to do so. We could also add in that Molly had a role as teacher as well because she home-schooled all seven of her children before they went to Hogwarts.

In my view the proper context is that Molly is skilled enough for Dumbledore to ask her to join the Order, and the Order members are comfortable with assigning Molly to guard duty at the DOM, she fights along with everyone else at Hogwarts, and she duels Bella. These are not maternal skills. The only one which can reasonably be seen as motivated by protection of family is her intervention in the duel with Bella. The other activities are not.

Exactly. As I said before, maternal love could certainly give Molly the drive and determination to act towards protecting children, but it would not give her the knowledge or skill necessary to succeed or win a duel like the one presented between Molly and Bellatrix. That was not a one-off deal with Molly getting lucky in catching Bellatrix by surprise and taking her out with a single spell. That was an extended duel with both women fighting to kill - casting and blocking spells with skill. Even Bellatrix realized that Molly was an opponent she should take seriously. That demonstrated that Molly was not just being driven by maternal love -she also had the talent and skill to win, IMO.

In my opinion, the proper context is to see Molly's abilities that are separate from her role as mother -- just as Tonks is not described as fighting at Hogwarts because she is a mother, or any other witch present (mother or not) who was fighting the DE's. I believe you have posted that you think that Molly was not really fighting but only working in the background doing healing spells -- just because there isn't much on-page description of her fighting except when she challenged Bella -- yet the assumption is that Tonks was fighting the entire time, even though there's not much on-page for her, either. In my view, that is not a proper context.

I agree. We could say the same for Neville's grandmother - who is the maternal figure in his life. She's not an Auror or anything like that either, but she was still a formidable witch. They sent an Auror after her and she put him in St. Mungo's - and she also fights in the final battle as Molly did. And why limit that to mothers? Arthur and Lupin were fighting for their children as well. Not to mention that the reinforcements that arrived in the end largely consisted of parents - mothers and fathers joining the fight against Voldemort and the Death Eaters to get rid of them once and for all. Molly was not the only person fighting in that battle who had children - there were a lot of parents fighting. Protecting their children and making the world a better place for them would certainly have been part of that, but that was not the only reason why any of them were fighting in that battle.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

In my view, Molly is more than a "mother figure". We learn of the early loss of her brothers killed by the DE's in the first war. From what we know of Molly's personality and her fierce determination, it's likely that she paid a great deal of attention to strengthening her skills, both defensive and dueling. She is more than adept at managing the family's finances. She joined the Order for the 2nd war, and was given the same type of duties as the aurors, which implies she can more than hold her own. She fights in the battle at Hogwarts, and she duels Bella to the death. These are skills and abilities beyond caring for her family. To suggest that Molly joined the Order, fought and dueled Bella only for her family, is, I think, inaccurate

I never said she joined the Order just because of her family. Actually, of all the scenes you mentioned above I would say that Dumbledore asking Molly to join the Order is the only character defining moment. Molly having two brothers or knowing how to duel does not indicate character development, IMO.

In my view the proper context is that Molly is skilled enough for Dumbledore to ask her to join the Order, and the Order members are comfortable with assigning Molly to guard duty at the DOM, she fights along with everyone else at Hogwarts, and she duels Bella. These are not maternal skills. The only one which can reasonably be seen as motivated by protection of family is her intervention in the duel with Bella. The other activities are not.

While I'm sure Dumbledore didn't ask Molly to hoin the Order because she was a mother I would say that it is possible Dumbledore gained insight into Molly's personality and character by seeing her in her role as a mother. He knew she and her husband were "blood traitors" so they didn't care about blood purity and they were kind people who taught their children good values. Not to mention Molly's attachment to Harry. All of this is I believe an important part of how Dumbledore knew he could trust Arthur and Molly to do the right thing.
The other scenes you mentioned are forgettable, IMO, and cannot be said to constitute character development. The way I see it, Molly's important scenes are the ones with Fleur, the ones with Percy, the scenes with Harry, the one with the Boggart and her concern for her family, and last but not least her duel with Bellatrix. In all of these scenes she is acting like a mother and family woman. They are all realated to her role as a mother. The fact that she is mentioned in passing doing something else does not change this, in my view. All characters have important moments in the story and less important ones. Molly's moments are related to motherhood.

In my opinion, the proper context is to see Molly's abilities that are separate from her role as mother -- just as Tonks is not described as fighting at Hogwarts because she is a mother, or any other witch present (mother or not) who was fighting the DE's. I believe you have posted that you think that Molly was not really fighting but only working in the background doing healing spells -- just because there isn't much on-page description of her fighting except when she challenged Bella -- yet the assumption is that Tonks was fighting the entire time, even though there's not much on-page for her, either. In my view, that is not a proper context.

I didn't say she wasn't fighting just that she probably didn't engage in one on one duels prior to the one with Bellatrix. As to why I'm applying different standards to Molly and Tonks-- I feel their situations are not comparable. Tonks is an Auror and an Order member who engaged in fights without having any personal interest in them. She came to Harry's aid in OotP without even being a mother then or having any special attachment to any of the people involved. She later helped take Harry from the Privet Drive to her family's house-- again without even being a mother at the time and without herself or someone she loved being in danger. She actually put herself in danger in order to do her duty. So when she fought in the Battle of Hogwarts I have no doubt she did it partly for her child but also because it was her duty as an Auror and an Order member.

I really don't think that based on what we have seen we can apply the same description to Molly. The author missed all her chances to show Molly fighting without her family being directly involved. She depicted Molly as someone who didn't seem interested in fighting, IMO, and despite being an Order member she continued to engage in domestic duties such as cleaning the house or preparing meals. Nothing wrong with that of course but in this aspect she differs from other Order members. I must ask you this: why did Rowling have Bellatrix try to kill Ginny in order to involve Molly in the battle? Why couldn't Molly have fought Bellatrix without Ginny being in danger, simply because they were on opposites sides in the war? Why did Ginny need to be involved in the first place? This is why I don't see the duel as Molly transcending her mother role. She is more maternal than ever. The only significant contribution she makes to the fight is in her role as a mother. There is nothing wrong with this, Molly's reaction is perfectly natural and appropiate, but I think the duel is the final proof that Molly was meant to represent a motherhood ideal and underline the message of maternal love the books promote.

[SnapesBane]

You mades an excellent point about the maternal theme, Sereena. My hat's off to you.

[Peakes]

Agreed, and it certainly doesn't IMO detract from Molly in any way. It's also a recurring theme - what wouldn't a mother do to protect her family? We see it with Lily (sacrificing herself for her son) and even Narcissa in lying to Voldemort (the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen).

[DoraDukes]

1) We saw a couple of new facets to Molly's personality in Deathly Hallows. Has your opinion of her changed?

No, Molly does what any mother or wife would do. She did everything within her power to protect her family. I always held her in a high regard as a character. She was strong and a fierce protector.

2) Molly had that unforgettable line where she confronted Bellatrix. We saw that she was a very skilled fighter. Have we seen flashes of this passion in her before?

He did everything with a passion....Look at those sweaters!

3) Does Molly put Ginny before her other children?

I don't think she means to. She is her only daughter so perhaps she feels the need to protect her more.

4)Can you picture Molly as a doting Granmother to Ron and Hermionie's children and Harry and Ginny's?

Those kids are going to be spoiled :-)

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Sereena

The other scenes you mentioned are forgettable, IMO, and cannot be said to constitute character development. The way I see it, Molly's important scenes are the ones with Fleur, the ones with Percy, the scenes with Harry, the one with the Boggart and her concern for her family, and last but not least her duel with Bellatrix. In all of these scenes she is acting like a mother and family woman. They are all realated to her role as a mother. The fact that she is mentioned in passing doing something else does not change this, in my view. All characters have important moments in the story and less important ones. Molly's moments are related to motherhood.

Actually, not all Molly's moments "are related to motherhood". While that is your opinion, others see Molly differently. And in my view, fighting someone to the death is in a whole different category. You don't get asked into the Order by Dumbledore by "only being a mother". Obviously Dumbledore thought Molly a competent fighter & dueler, and someone he could count on. Molly was not in a maternal role in Order meetings, or on guard duty at the DOM, or in the fight at Hogwarts. She put everything on the line, including her family, when she & Arthur joined up, and in my opinion is exactly the same as your example of Tonks risking her life to do her duty. So did Molly. Personally I find it sad that Molly is seen as "only a mother" regardless of whatever else she had done.

Originally Posted by Sereena

I didn't say she wasn't fighting just that she probably didn't engage in one on one duels prior to the one with Bellatrix.

It certainly seemed that's what you're saying in this post (#339):

Originally Posted by Sereena

Either way, I don't see her as an active participant prior to that duel. I think she was probably performing healing charms and firing some spells here and there but not actually engaging someone in a one on one duel.

Originally Posted by Sereena

She depicted Molly as someone who didn't seem interested in fighting, IMO, and despite being an Order member she continued to engage in domestic duties such as cleaning the house or preparing meals. Nothing wrong with that of course but in this aspect she differs from other Order members.

Sorry, but how does preparing meals make you "not interested in fighting" or less of an Order member? Tonks probably prepared meals for her & Lupin -- does that make her less an Auror or Order member? What about Hermione -- she made the meals when they were on the run looking for horcruxes -- less skilled at dueling, or suddenly losing power as a witch because she made meals? No? Then why discredit Molly for preparing the meals after Order meetings -- she was likely the best cook in the bunch, and didn't mind the work. Are you suggesting that doing "domestic duties" somehow makes one smaller, less competent or skilled?

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Actually, not all Molly's moments "are related to motherhood". While that is your opinion, others see Molly differently. And in my view, fighting someone to the death is in a whole different category. You don't get asked into the Order by Dumbledore by "only being a mother". Obviously Dumbledore thought Molly a competent fighter & dueler, and someone he could count on. Molly was not in a maternal role in Order meetings, or on guard duty at the DOM, or in the fight at Hogwarts. She put everything on the line, including her family, when she & Arthur joined up, and in my opinion is exactly the same as your example of Tonks risking her life to do her duty. So did Molly. Personally I find it sad that Molly is seen as "only a mother" regardless of whatever else she had done.

Completely agree. As I said before, I don't think Molly would have been given assignments like standing guard over Harry at Privet Dr. or standing guard at the DoM - both of which presented the risk of having to duel Death Eaters - unless she was skilled at dueling.

Sorry, but how does preparing meals make you "not interested in fighting" or less of an Order member? Tonks probably prepared meals for her & Lupin -- does that make her less an Auror or Order member? What about Hermione -- she made the meals when they were on the run looking for horcruxes -- less skilled at dueling, or suddenly losing power as a witch because she made meals? No? Then why discredit Molly for preparing the meals after Order meetings -- she was likely the best cook in the bunch, and didn't mind the work. Are you suggesting that doing "domestic duties" somehow makes one smaller, less competent or skilled?

If doing "domestic duties" makes someone not interested in fighting or less of an Order member, we would have to apply that to the entire Order as they were all helping with such "domestic duties", IMO. Tonks offered to help prepare meals, Sirius did prepare meals, and everyone in the Order helped in cleaning the house at some point or other. I really don't see any difference myself. Why should Molly be considered less of an Order member when they were all doing "domestic duties"? They were all fighting against Voldemort to make the world a better place from what we're shown.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

If doing "domestic duties" makes someone not interested in fighting or less of an Order member, we would have to apply that to the entire Order as they were all helping with such "domestic duties", IMO. Tonks offered to help prepare meals, Sirius did prepare meals, and everyone in the Order helped in cleaning the house at some point or other. I really don't see any difference myself. Why should Molly be considered less of an Order member when they were all doing "domestic duties"? They were all fighting against Voldemort to make the world a better place from what we're shown.

Right. In a war, it isn't just professional soldiers, cops and firemen who go to fight. Not everyone who can fight is a professional fighter- just like in real life, there just isn't likely to be a big enough market for duelling (there can only be so many aurors). Arthur, of course, was also in the Order, and had a job in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department. Lupin and Sirius were also not Aurors, and yet made very serviceable fighters. I think that the comparison of Molly to Lupin is the most valid. Why do we see Lupin as more qualified than Molly?

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Personally I find it sad that Molly is seen as "only a mother" regardless of whatever else she had done.

I don't think it's sad at all. Many characters, I would even say most characters, are meant to represent certain aspects or roles. That's not limited to Molly, IMO.

Sorry, but how does preparing meals make you "not interested in fighting" or less of an Order member? Tonks probably prepared meals for her & Lupin -- does that make her less an Auror or Order member? What about Hermione -- she made the meals when they were on the run looking for horcruxes -- less skilled at dueling, or suddenly losing power as a witch because she made meals? No? Then why discredit Molly for preparing the meals after Order meetings -- she was likely the best cook in the bunch, and didn't mind the work. Are you suggesting that doing "domestic duties" somehow makes one smaller, less competent or skilled?

No, I'm suggesting it is consistent with Molly's characterization. She wanted to take care of people so she enjoyed cooking meals for them. It was consistent with what we already knew about her. Snape cooking meals would have been... odd, to say the least. It's neither better nor worse than doing anything else it was merely in character for her. And I'm not sure why you keep suggesting that I consider Molly unskilled or not a full participant when I have already said that she was both. She didn't come across to me as someone interested in the battlefield. Again, that's a neutral aspect of her character, it's neither good nor bad. That's just like saying Bellatrix was interested in fighting but not cooking. It's how her character came across to me. It's not a put down.

Actually, not all Molly's moments "are related to motherhood". While that is your opinion, others see Molly differently. And in my view, fighting someone to the death is in a whole different category.

But not if you're doing it as a mother which I thoguht you had already agreed with. I really don't see any way of interpreting the duel that is not related to motherhood and Rowling's post publication comments suggest the same thing, to me.
I didn't realize saying Molly was meant to embody the mother-ideal was a controversial statement. Yes, she does other things but for me doing 2% other things and 98% of one thing doesn't really change how I view a character. Any character, not just Molly. I can see that for others this is different which is perfectly fine. I don't really see any reason for continuing the discussion at this level of animosity so I can agree to disagree.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I don't think it's sad at all. Many characters, I would even say most characters, are meant to represent certain aspects or roles. That's not limited to Molly, IMO.

They are meant to be characters, however. Dumbledore was meant to represent 'the headmaster' role, but of course he is so very much more than that. It would be a shame to just view him for his role.


[staff edit]

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Right. In a war, it isn't just professional soldiers, cops and firemen who go to fight. Not everyone who can fight is a professional fighter- just like in real life, there just isn't likely to be a big enough market for duelling (there can only be so many aurors). Arthur, of course, was also in the Order, and had a job in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department. Lupin and Sirius were also not Aurors, and yet made very serviceable fighters. I think that the comparison of Molly to Lupin is the most valid. Why do we see Lupin as more qualified than Molly?

Exactly. That's what I find interesting about the Order in general actually. It's not made up of only the elite Aurors and they're not all trained soldiers. There are a few Aurors involved, but mostly they were just people you would run into everyday. Parents, teachers, office workers, and even some unemployed like Sirius and Lupin - though Lupin did work as a teacher in POA.. They were still capable of fighting and most were given assignments that would potentially require them to fight.

Originally Posted by willfitz

They are meant to be characters, however. Dumbledore was meant to represent 'the headmaster' role, but of course he is so very much more than that. It would be a shame to just view him for his role.

I agree. The great thing about HP is that the characters were so mufti-faceted. They aren't limited to any single thing. Dumbledore is headmaster and former Transfiguration teacher, but he also leads the Order and has a life outside of being a teacher. McGonagall was the current Transfiguration teacher, but she was also in the Order and had a life outside of being a teacher. Molly was a housewife and a mother, but she was also presented as being a sister, a concerned citizen, and a member of the Order. She was never limited to just that one aspect of her character - like all the characters, there were many facets to Molly, IMO.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I don't think it's sad at all. Many characters, I would even say most characters, are meant to represent certain aspects or roles. That's not limited to Molly, IMO.

Originally Posted by willfitz

They are meant to be characters, however. Dumbledore was meant to represent 'the headmaster' role, but of course he is so very much more than that. It would be a shame to just view him for his role.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

I agree. The great thing about HP is that the characters were so mufti-faceted. They aren't limited to any single thing. Dumbledore is headmaster and former Transfiguration teacher, but he also leads the Order and has a life outside of being a teacher. McGonagall was the current Transfiguration teacher, but she was also in the Order and had a life outside of being a teacher. Molly was a housewife and a mother, but she was also presented as being a sister, a concerned citizen, and a member of the Order. She was never limited to just that one aspect of her character - like all the characters, there were many facets to Molly, IMO.

Dumbledore played the part of the headmaster in the story and was at the same time very much more than that as a character but as for what he represented he was the Mentor. A large percentage of Harry's interactions with Dumbledore include them playing the parts of Student and Mentor which is driven home in virtually all the books when Dumbledore sits Harry down at the end and tells him all about what just happened and why it happened that way and what Harry should think/feel/do about it, etc. Yes, Dumbledore was so much more than just the Mentor in the story but that didn't change what he represents.

Similarly, just because Molly is said (not shown) to be a guard for the Order of the Phoenix and engages in other non-mothering activities doesn't change what she represents in terms of the story. That stuff adds to the character, makes her multi-faceted and more interesting but doesn't change the essential part of her: that she's the Mother of the series, just as Harry is the Orphan, Dumbledore is the Mentor, Snape is the Shapeshifter... Representing something in the books or being an archetype doesn't mean that character can only exist in that box.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Dumbledore played the part of the headmaster in the story and was at the same time very much more than that as a character but as for what he represented he was the Mentor. A large percentage of Harry's interactions with Dumbledore include them playing the parts of Student and Mentor which is driven home in virtually all the books when Dumbledore sits Harry down at the end and tells him all about what just happened and why it happened that way and what Harry should think/feel/do about it, etc. Yes, Dumbledore was so much more than just the Mentor in the story but that didn't change what he represents.

Similarly, just because Molly is said (not shown) to be a guard for the Order of the Phoenix and engages in other non-mothering activities doesn't change what she represents in terms of the story. That stuff adds to the character, makes her multi-faceted and more interesting but doesn't change the essential part of her: that she's the Mother of the series, just as Harry is the Orphan, Dumbledore is the Mentor, Snape is the Shapeshifter... Representing something in the books or being an archetype doesn't mean that character can only exist in that box.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

But in what sort of character analysis is it pertinent to only consider her overall 'role' in the books? I mean, what use is that in terms of discussing whether her ability to duel was consistent with her character, for example? The 'role' of each character tells us nothing about them, really.

So my perspective is not that it is wrong to declare Molly to have the role of the 'mother,' or Dumbledore as the 'wise old man,' or Sirius as the 'cool uncle,' but rather that that is a singularly useless observation in terms of character analysis. The fact that she is a mother cannot be used to justify or refute any of her actions, in my opinion.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by willfitz

But in what sort of character analysis is it pertinent to only consider her overall 'role' in the books? I mean, what use is that in terms of discussing whether her ability to duel was consistent with her character, for example? The 'role' of each character tells us nothing about them, really.

So my perspective is not that it is wrong to declare Molly to have the role of the 'mother,' or Dumbledore as the 'wise old man,' or Sirius as the 'cool uncle,' but rather that that is a singularly useless observation in terms of character analysis. The fact that she is a mother cannot be used to justify or refute any of her actions, in my opinion.

It's pertinent in that understanding her as the Mother figure to Harry is one of the reasons why her dueling abilities, her Order duties and all her other-non-mothering activites are either not mentioned until they are needed in the story or not greatly developed. In terms of some of the revelations about Dumbledore, specifically to do with his family background and with Grindlewald, those are revelations that were necessary in order to understand facets of the plot and in terms of developing Harry's character; his Mentor must die so that he, the Student, can succeed on his own merit and surpass the Mentor. It wasn't necessary in terms of the plot to understand where Molly's dueling ability came from, all that we need to know and accept in terms of the story is that she is skilled enough to battle Bellatrix and win.

To me, in terms of character analysis, understanding the archetypes in play and what that character's role with regards to the hero is is important in understanding the information we get about characters and why some things are explained (Dumbledore's background) and others are not (Molly's dueling ability). Would it have been nice to have a scene in Grimmauld Place in OOTP where Molly mentions in passing that her brothers taught her a thing or two about dueling, yes. Would it have been great to get more true development of Molly's character beyond the mothering role she played, yes. But we didn't so we have to understand why that explanation wasn't given to us: because Harry sees her as a mother and that's more important to him than learning where her dueling skills came from.