Article: One Big Dysfunctional Weasley Family? (LONG)

[psychic_serpent]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lynn <lynntownsend100 at y...> 
wrote:
  
> Thanks to Kia, who pointed me in the direction of this article 
> recently:
> 
> http://www.redhen-publications.com/Weasleys.html
  
Well, I suppose it COULD be a thought-provoking article, but it does 
have a number of flaws concerning the canon.  First of all, the 
author claims, "Somehow the fans cannot bring themselves to accept 
the possibility that there is a down side to the Gryffindor 
character - despite ample examples to the contrary (Lockhart, Bagman 
and Pettigrew to begin with)."

There is no evidence in canon that any of the characters mentioned 
were in Gryffindor.  While it is very LIKELY that Pettigrew was, as 
part of the circle of friends that also included Sirius, Remus and 
James (whom we know to be a Gryffindor), he is alone in that 
regard.  There isn't even an inkling in the books that Lockhart and 
Bagman might be Gryffindors.  Their characters, clever and wily, but 
morally flawed, would more easily suggest Ravenclaw or Slytherin.  
So the assertion that there is an ample supply of flawed Gryffindor 
characters setting a precedent for Percy's character is itself based 
upon non-existent material. (The author could have been more 
convincing citing James Potter and Sirius Black.)

The author goes on to say, "First; it offers clear support to the 
view that the Hat sends children into the House that most closely 
matches the child's aspirations rather than the one that is 
necessarily the closest match to his potential personality."

We also do not have ample evidence for this, especially since the 
author says right after, "Percy clearly wants to be admired for the 
fine, virtuous, upstanding young man that he is so confident he 
is."  It's a theory, but that's all it is.  We have no way of 
knowing why Percy was sorted into Gryffindor (although I have my 
suspicions).  The only two characters that we know of who seem to 
have had some impact on where they were sorted are Harry and 
Hermione; in the first book we learned that the hat thought 
Slytherin would help him to be great, but the fact that he didn't 
want to be in Slytherin meant he was sorted into a different house.  
He never asked for Gryffindor.  His only expressed "aspiration" at 
the time was to NOT be a Slytherin.  Hermione was considered for 
Ravenclaw, we learned in OotP, but was put in Gryffindor.  This also 
seems to run counter to the "aspiration" assertion that the author 
of the article makes.

The author claims that the problems in the family aren't just 
defined by Percy, but that assumes that you think Percy is a problem 
in the first place.  It seemed abundantly clear to me that Percy was 
doing everything he could in OotP to get information out of the 
Ministry to either his family (his letter to Ron in the middle of 
the night) or to the wizarding populace (his quotes in the Prophet) 
on his own terms, while carefully not alarming his boss or alerting 
him to Percy's being a spy.  Molly's and Arthur's comments about him 
are extremely unconvincing; what is really revealing is that Molly 
still fears Percy dying (his was another dead body she saw while 
fighting the boggart) which would be more logical if he was involved 
in dangerous covert work.  Percy was the perfect person to 
infiltrate the top Ministry offices and I wouldn't be surprised if 
Dumbledore himself had asked his former Head Boy to do this.

So the author builds a house on sand, asserting that Gryffindors who 
probably weren't Gryffindors (probably only one out of three, 
anyway) set the precedent, claiming that Percy is a problem when he 
is most likely a spy, and then going on to criticize the twins.  The 
twins already showed how useful their inventions could be to fight 
evil in OotP, and I fully expect their ingenuity to help the fight 
against Voldemort outside the castle walls in the sixth book.  In 
the long run, like Percy's so-called ambition, I think the twins' 
supposed avarice will prove to be a red-herring.  I think they're 
willing to do what's necessary to fight the good fight and will not 
worry overmuch about monetary gain while doing so.

Ron is admittedly discontented, but as his confidence improves so 
does his general demeanor.  Basically, the author seems to be 
holding against him that he's a typical fifteen-year-old, and the 
same goes for Ginny, whose character was remarkable and finally 
fully formed in OotP.

I fail to see the evidence for the dynamics of the family having 
gone "seriously wrong" as the author asserts (as I said, with very 
flawed underpinnings).  There is also no evidence in canon 
that "Arthur stopped living up to Molly's expectations."  Molly 
sternly reprimands the Ron when he complains about old robes, 
defending her husband's career choices, and she certainly stands by 
him when he's in St. Mungo's.  The idea that his love of Muggle 
technology came between the two of them is just completely 
unsubstantiated.  Molly seems quite proud that the family is not 
anti-Muggle.  I just don't know what Molly Weasley this person has 
been reading, but it doesn't seem to be the one from JKR's books.

While the assertion that Molly "wears the pants in the family" (odd, 
when they really tend to wear robes) is something that can be seen 
in canon, the author presents this as a BAD thing, rather than just 
the way it is with the Weasleys (and with many families, for that 
matter).  The upshot of this seems to be that Arthur has a deep 
affection for his wife and a resounding respect for her judgment.  
How this makes the family "dysfunctional" is a mystery to me.  Plus, 
there are times that Molly defers to him, making this seem far more 
like an equal partnership than the author suggests.

While the assertion is also made that Molly, Percy and the twins are 
bullies (usually I see the twins called bullies, which is probably 
closer to the mark), this again is unsubstantiated by canon.  
They're opinionated, certainly, and often their opinions conflict.  
The twins, closest to being bullies, are still not even close to the 
bully that was Harry's own father, James Potter, now that we know a 
little more about him, nor his beloved godfather, Sirius Black.  By 
comparison, their pranks are cheerful and harmless, rather than 
scarring someone emotionally for life.  (Severus Snape.)

It is mentioned that in GoF, both Molly and Percy are "led up the 
garden path by their absolute confidence that the people in charge 
are to be trusted and obeyed."  While this is true, they are not the 
only ones in the series who are guilty of this, and they have 
certainly seen the error of their ways now.  (Since, as I said 
early, it seems clear that in OotP Percy is spying on those very 
authority figures.)  The perfect Hermione herself was utterly 
blinded to Lockhart's flaws early in CoS, and many, many characters 
in OotP are depicted as hopefully clinging to the idea that those in 
charge can be trusted, as they clutch at straws in a newly uncertain 
wizarding world.  Harry himself trusted the ersatz Moody utterly 
until they were alone together in GoF and young Crouch revealed his 
true identity and his plans for Harry.  This danger (of trusting 
authority too much) is a recurring theme in the series, and before 
the end we are likely to see many, many characters fall prey to this.

The author claims, "And, so far, we have seen nothing in Percy's 
behavior which would not be consistent with deliberately distancing 
himself from his family, for their own as well as his mission's 
protection," going on to mention Percy's "over-the-top pompous 
letter to Ron congratulating him on his Prefect's appointment" in 
which he also advises him "to distance himself from Harry Potter."  
Actually, that very letter is the strongest thing in OotP, other 
than the article that appears in the Prophet the next day, to 
support the idea that Percy is a spy.  That letter very cleverly 
communicated information to Ron and his friends that the rest of the 
world did not have until the Prophet came out the next day, and it 
was sent in the middle of the night, to avoid the problem of the owl 
being intercepted (which Percy clearly knew was a danger).  The 
letter was also clearly calculated to make Ron react strongly, 
vowing that he would never abandon Harry, showing that Percy knows 
his reverse psychology very well.  Percy's reaction in Dumbledore's 
office is also cited as evidence that he can't be a spy, but if he 
hadn't reacted that way, he would have blown his cover.  It is only 
evidence that he is a GOOD spy, not a gleeful villain.

Then the author, inexplicably, goes off on a tangent about how the 
age gap between Charlie and Percy "doesn't work" for the author, 
citing Oliver Wood's hero-worship of Charlie, which the author 
somehow thinks means that they must have been in school 
simultaneously.  This is a very strange assumption to make and has 
nothing to do with whether the family is dysfunctional.  Ginny's 
comment about wanting to go to Hogwarts ever since Bill had gone 
always struck me as a Flint; JKR is not from a large family (I am) 
and probably just did not think about the fact that Ginny wasn't 
even born when Bill started school.  Perhaps someday it will be 
changed to say, "ever since Percy went," which would make more 
sense.  

The author then ends with a discussion of Ogg, Hagrid and Lucius 
Malfoy, which also has nothing to do with the original premise of 
the essay.  It never comes back around to the thesis, which was not 
supported by any canon evidence anyway, so perhaps this was the 
author's way of diverting the reader from that fact.  I've read far 
better analyses of the Potter books in Fiction Alley Park, frankly.  
Trust me, you won't be missing anything if you skip this too-long, 
rambling and poorly constructed and argued essay.

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb