OOP: Weasley vs. Black and families in general

[ronin_economist]

No: HPFGUIDX 61673

Hello from Tokyo, where only 4 people showed up to get the coveted 
book!

It was nice to read more about how wizarding families work so early 
in the book, and see pure-blood relationships and politics. 

Something struck me as odd, however: Sirius explains how pure-blooded 
wizards are in short supply, and they pretty much have to marry their 
cousins if they want to keep the bloodlines "pure." He then mentions 
his being related to the Weasleys as an example. I thought it was odd 
that Arthur and Molly, both pure-bloods, ended up with each other, 
considering the rarity of their ancestries and the fact that neither 
of them harbor blood prejudices. Sure, the Weasleys are in the story 
as an example of not-wealthy, not-bigoted pure blood wizards, but 
with this new information, we know that it takes a special effort for 
families to *stay* pure-blooded. Just odd.

I also suspect that JKR was setting up a parallel between the Weasley 
and Black clans, in those first few chapters at Headquarters. We find 
out about Percy's estrangement from the other Weasleys, and it's no 
coincidence that Sirius tells Harry about disowning *his* family in 
the very next chapter. However, we're meant to be horrified by 
Percy's lack of family loyalty while supporting Sirius' actions. It's 
easy to sympathize with Sirius: we are given evidence in the 
tapestry, as well as his mother's own words, that his family is a 
bunch of bigoted dark wizards and witches. Those Blacks who go agaist 
their family's wishes are disowned.

Percy is harder to understand: the Weasleys are so very likable. It's 
only reasonable for Molly to disapprove of and actively sabotage Fred 
and George's chosen careers -- after all, running a joke shop is 
unsuitable for Weasleys! And Arthur is just looking out for the 
family's best interest when he gets into a shouting match with Percy 
after his promotion -- just because he and Molly always supported 
Percy's ambition doesn't mean that their son could go and take any 
old high-ranking position! Percy is quite an unpleasant, snotty 
sycophant all through OoP (and Gof before that,) and everyone had 
seen his betrayal coming. But if we were to hear it from Percy, the 
situation would probably sound much like that of Sirius: he was part 
of a close-knit, but stifling clan, he disagreed with his parents' 
and siblings beliefs and priorities, and in order to live as he 
wished, he had no choice but leave the family.

If it was all right for Black to leave his family, then it must be 
all right for Percy -- family disloyalty is clearly not a crime, so 
the worst he is guilty of is poor judgement. And his judgement is 
indeed poor, as being blinded by ambition, Percy can't see the 
bureaucratic and banal evils of Fudge's office. Percy is not a 
likeable character, and I would not even say his actions are 
defensible, as he is clearly old and intelligent enough to see 
through Fudge and co. But they are understandable. Percy was immature 
to be embarassed by his unambitious father, but let's take his 
perspective again: his whole life, he was the Weasley golden boy, 
praised by his parents and set as an example before his siblings. His 
parents just about worshipped his ambition and success -- until he 
achieved real success, a position in the Minister's cabinet -- at 
which point his parents suddenly, and to him incomprehensibly, turned 
agaist him. For doing exactly what they encouraged him to do all 
along! Enough for anyone to want to move out and stop speaking to 
their parents! 

Of course, Percy doesn't just do that, he also supports and aids a 
morally objectionable organization, and harms people in the process. 
So he's not blameless. But considering that Sirius also joined a 
group that directly (and violently) opposed that of his relatives, we 
would be hypocrites to point fingers and say: "Tsk, tsk, that Weasley 
boy should have stuck with his family!"

There is a lot more discussion of family in OOP, complicating the 
issues that seemed so clear-cut before. Harry finds out that his 
father, whom he idolized, was not as perfect as he imagined him. 
What's more, his Aunt Petunia, who treated him badly all his life, 
actually made a compassionate choice to take him in and protect him --
 out of family loyalty. Family, it turns out, is a messy business. 
Being loyal to one's family is admirable only when the family is 
doing the right thing, and even grudging loyalty is better that none. 
On the other hand, being a loving relative doesn't make someone a 
great person, not does being an uncaring caretaker make someone 
completely bad.

I'm not sure what this means for the theme, or the future: I would 
wager Percy is set up for redemption since Sirius acted similarly and 
was a good guy. On the other hand, does that mean Petunia won't 
become more tolerable, since her contract with Dumbledore was made 
only out of loyalty and not genuine beliefs? I'm sure I missed stuff, 
but the meaning of family is clearly a major theme in OOP and I'd 
like to get a discussion started.

Reene