That's an interesting theory --> Re: Percy's Character Flaw

[heiditandy]

No: HPFGUIDX 37373

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "demeter918" <Demeter918 at A...> wrote:
> >    That plays off the theory that perhaps Percy was told 
endlessly 
> > that if he didn't behave, if he didn't follow the rules, if he 
> didn't 
> > follow all the rules, then one of his little siblings would die. 
> And 
> > so would 'mummy' and himself. Pretty scary stuff for a five-year 
> old. 
And --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" <jmmears at p...> replied > 
> 
> Is there any canon at all to suggest that Percy alone among the 
> Weasley children was browbeaten into behaving and following 
rules?  

There is a combination of canon and the psychology of children which 
combines to show that Percy may very well have been the child to 
whom the importance of following rules was most drummed into in his 
formative years. If you work from the presumption that he was 15 in 
1991, when PS begins, then he was born in or around 1975, which 
meant that he was a little boy - 5 or 6 years old - at the end of 
Voldemort's first reign of terror. 

If you look at the comment in PS that Voldemort had been terrorising 
the population for about 10-11 years before 1981 (i.e. 1970-1981) 
and follow the timeline that puts Charlie born in 67ish and Bill no 
later than 67 (since we don't know how much older than Charlie he 
is, and it is possible to have 2 children who aren't twins born in 
the same year, if one is January and one December) then by the time 
Voldemort was likely deemed a thing to be feared, Bill would've 
already been 7 or 8 and Charlie 5ish - before that, afawk, there was 
nothing Really Really Bad to fear.

Without getting into current situations, I did read an article about 
police in Israel going on children's television programmes to tell 
the kids about staying safe, following their parents' rules, 
reporting suspicious people, etc. Psychologists know that this kind 
of rule-following, while making kids safer at the time, has lasting 
psychological effects. 

And to parallel PS and Percy, given that he was under 6ish, but with 
up to 4 younger siblings, during the later days of Voldemort's rise, 
and given what we know about the Weasleys, I find it *very 
reasonable speculation* to determine that it was *very likely* that 
he was given rules from a young age - rules to keep himself safe, 
rules to keep his toddler siblings safe. 

Yes, the "Was there a son between Charlie & Percy whose death or 
disapearance made Percy even more of a rule follower" question is 
complete speculation but then again, so are so many other topics on 
this list. Some speculation has more canon to peg itself to, some 
has less - but where there is canon basis, that speculation is 
reasonable and in the absence of new canon, I think (IMHO) de riguer 
(which I think I spelled wrong)


heidi
http://www.fictionalley.org

> I know that lots of wild theories have been proposed lately but 
> usually the poster at least attempts to tie them to some sort of 
> canon.  I've always believed that Percy has his *own* personality, 
> and that even though he was brought up under more or less the same 
> conditions as his siblings, he's just perfectionistic and fussy 
> about rules because he's, well...Percy.  I realize that isn't 
really 
> terribly exciting, but I can't see JKR coming up with some deeply 
> traumatic reason for each family member having their own 
individual 
> identity.
> 
> 
> Demeter again: 
> >    And with that huge age-gap between him and Charlie, there's a 
> > definite possibility for a kid in there. And it would make 
sense. 
> Why 
> > else would the have Bill, then Charlie, and then suddenly no 
kids 
> for 
> > nine years before Percy?
> > 
> >    There's a fic written by A'jes' Blue that deals with that 
> > possibility. 
> 
>  
> Again, is there any canon to support this notion that there was a 
> kid born between Charlie and Percy?  There is a 10 year gap 
between 
> me and my older sister and there is also a similar 10 year gap in 
my 
> husband's family.  There were no deaths or miscarriages; it was 
just 
> a matter of deciding to have one more child before it was too 
late.  
> I'm not saying that the Weasley's may not have had a reason to 
stop 
> having children for a period during Voldemort's reign of terror, 
but 
> so far I've seen no evidence to support the loss of a child in 
this 
> period.  I fear that the list is turning into a fanfic generating 
> machine.
> 
> 
> Jo Serenadust, fighting an uphill battle to stay canonically (is 
> that a word?) *pure*