CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 9, The Woes of Mrs. Weasley - Discussion Questions

[elfundeb2]

No: HPFGUIDX 88431

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> 
wrote:
 Chapter 9 - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley

Ah, one of my favorite chapters . . .
> 
> Discussion Questions:
> 
> 4. There's a distinct note of bitterness in Arthur's voice when 
> he speaks of Lucius Malfoy and especially of his money.  Money 
> has always been a delicate issue around the Weasleys.  We 
> know that Ron is embarrassed by his family's poverty, that Mrs. 
> Weasley, when she breaks down momentarily at the beginning 
> of GoF, expresses her frustration at her family's financial 
> situation, and that Percy threw the money issue in his father's 
> face during the row the precipitated his leaving home.  Does 
> Arthur's tone of voice suggest that, despite his ideological 
> reasons, he regrets choosing a lifestyle that isn't financially 
> rewarding?  Does his resentment of Malfoy have financial 
> underpinnings?
> 
I've always thought there's much more to the animosity between 
Arthur and Lucius than the Weasleys' finances.  Going back to CoS 
and the near-brawl between them at Flourish & Blotts, which Arthur 
initiated after Lucius insulted the Grangers, it struck me that 
their animosity stems from specific events in their past that go far 
beyond their relative wealth.  Those events may be responsible for 
Arthur's poverty, but it's something other than the poverty itself 
that really embarrasses Arthur (the kids, OTOH, only see the 
poverty). 

What is it?  For us Imperius!Arthur aficionados, the simple answer 
is that Lucius Imperio'd Arthur during VWI, possibly forcing him to 
victimise Muggles.  (Remember how Lucius got off by claiming the 
Imperius Curse?)  And members of the Auror!Arthur wing of the 
Imperius!Arthur Trimaran have already developed a scenario in which 
Arthur's known susceptibility to Imperius have cost him his Auror 
job at the Ministry.  (I could spin an entire tale, but it's not 
relevant to this chapter. <eg>
 
> 7. Hermione's analysis of Sirius is the first instance of many in 
> OOP in which she acts as Harry's emotional interpreter.  Why do 
> you feel Rowling gave this role to Hermione?  Is it because she's 
> a girl, and therefore more mature than either Harry or Ron at 
> this point, or is it because Hermione has traditionally held the 
> position of  information supplier in the Trio?  Do you believe 
> that Hermione will continue in this role in later books, or will 
> Harry develop emotional instincts of his own?  How does this 
> acuity of Hermione's reflect on the usual perception of her as 
> a non-intuitive person (as opposed to Luna, for example, who 
> is usually held up as an example of an intuitive female)?
> 
Marianne wrote:

> I think that Hermione is indeed intended to be not only Harry's
> guide, but also a character who functions to bring important
points
> or insights about other characters to the readers' attention.
And,
> it's the main reason I have a problem with Hermione. <snip> her
role of
> interpreter of other character's internal emotional states seems
> beyond her life experience as a fifteen-year-old. <snip>
It's when JKR uses her to analyze the motivations and 
> feelings of the adults around her that I feel a false note.


I didn't have a problem with this scene on first reading because 
Hermione is fairly clear here that she's using Molly's earlier 
comments about Sirius as a starting point.  Whether Hermione was 
right or wrong – and I didn't particularly credit her assessment – 
didn't seem to be important for purposes of this scene.  However, as 
she continued to analyze adult characters, it all began to seem OOC –
 setting aside her misguided attempt to free the house-elves, 
Hermione is too unerringly right in her assessments – not just of 
Sirius but of Umbridge and Rita Skeeter – to be realistic, even for 
most adults.  

As someone mentioned, JKR has said that she uses Hermione as a 
conduit for information the reader needs to know, but I think 
assessing the feelings and motivations of adults is outside the 
scope of "information" – we didn't learn any factual information 
from the scene in ch. 9.   In fact, hearing this from Hermione's 
mouth made me less likely to credit what Molly had said.  It's very 
much unlike in GoF during the rift between Harry and Ron when 
Hermione tried to explain how Ron was feeling.  Ron was a close 
friend whose interaction with Harry she'd been observing for over 3 
years at that point.  She barely knows Sirius, and she has Umbridge 
pegged from the moment she arrived at Hogwarts.  Sorry for the rant, 
but Hermione in OOP doesn't seem true.

> 8. Does Mrs. Weasley's glib mention of Scabbers suggest that 
 she doesn't know who he really was?  If so, why not?

I don't have an answer to this other than speculation.  I think 
Molly must know the story by now but still thinks of "Scabbers the 
pet" rather than Scabbers the traitorous animagus, because Scabbers 
lived in her home as a pet for 12 years.
> 
> 9. In past discussion, Mrs. Weasley has come under a lot of fire 
> for her behavior when she discovers that Ron has been made a 
> prefect.  She is criticized for dismissing Fred and George 
('that's 
> everyone in the family!') and for 'bribing' Ron for his 
achievement.  
> Do you feel that these criticisms are justified?  How do the 
> revelations about Mrs. Weasley's state of mind later in the 
chapter 
> affect your opinion of her?  Is it possible that she's 
overreacting 
> to the first bit of good news she's had in a while?  Could Mrs. 
> Weasley's joy over Ron's selection have something to do with 
 Percy?  Is she perhaps trying to recreate her lost favorite son in=
 
Ron?

For Molly, who does seem to find the family's poverty distressing, 
traditional WW marks of achievement (prefect, head boy, lots of OWLs 
and NEWTs, good job at the Ministry, etc.) seem to be touchstones 
that remind Molly that the family is not a "disgrace to the name of 
wizard" (what Lucius tells Arthur in CoS).  Her modus operandi is to 
offer rewards for recognition such as a prefect's badge and to nag 
those who don't receive the kind of recognition she values – she 
*does* seem to regard the twins and their aspirations as so much 
chopped liver.   This system, unfortunately, isn't likely to 
motivate Ron.  Fortunately for him, Dumbledore doesn't make choices 
based solely on past achievement.

The last questions here are very interesting.  I think Ron's 
temperament much more models Percy's than any other member of his 
family, though outwardly he allies himself with the twins in order 
to avoid the merciless teasing that the twins have historically 
heaped on Percy (there's no evidence that he's actually like the 
twins or he would have been nicking food from the kitchen long 
before Hermione found the entrance in GoF).  Because Ron has 
*appeared* to favor the twins over Percy, I don't think Molly 
harbored much hope for Ron; in fact, in either PoA or GoF, Molly 
comments that it would be unlikely that there would be any more 
prefects in the family.
> 
> 10. We already know why Harry wasn't selected for Prefect, but 
> do you feel that Ron was a good choice?  Does he truly have 
> latent leadership qualities or did Rowling select him simply to 
> make Harry jealous (and because, apart from Harry, he's the 
> Gryffindor boy with whom we have the most contact)?  What do 
> you feel might have been Dumbledore's reasons for selecting Ron 
> as prefect?  Is he perhaps trying to guide Ron in the path of his 
> older brothers?  Would another Gryffindor boy have made a better 
> choice?
> 
Marina wrote:

> I actually think that Neville would've been a better choice.  He 
> needed a confidence booster as much as Ron did, and had already 
> demonstrated, back in PS/SS, the courage to stand up to his peers 
> for the good of the house.  But in story terms, Neville is still 
too 
> minor a character.  Plus, his confidence booster came from the DA 
> instead.  Actually, I think the whole prefect storyline was kind 
of 
> wasted in the book.  Most of Ron's character development came from 
> his role as a Quidditch player, not from his role of prefect.  Of 
> course, if he hadn't made prefect, he wouldn't have had a broom to 
 get on the Quidditch team with, so perhaps that was its only 
purpose.

Certainly plot-wise Ron and not Neville needed to be the new 
prefect.  I thought it worked rather well in a number of ways.  
Ron's unwillingness to take on the more difficult leadership 
responsibilities associated with the prefect position – especially 
vis-à-vis the Twins – paralleled Lupin's unwillingness to call James 
and Sirius for their actions as well as his woes at Quidditch.    

I think Dumbledore had good strategic reasons for selecting Ron as 
prefect that had more to do with his awareness that, as a friend of 
Harry's Ron is going to be involved in the war and that various 
factors – including the shadow of his older brothers and friends and 
Molly's expectations – had left Ron badly lacking in the self-
confidence he would need in the coming battle.   And it worked.  
Even though the confidence finally came at Quidditch, Ron badly 
needed someone to believe in him.
> 
> 11. Is the twins' slightly malicious needling of Ron motivated by 
> his Prefect badge or by their mother's fawning adoration?  What 
> can we learn from Ron's wistful reaction at their attitude?  Does 
 Ron want to be like Fred and George?  Is he?

I've long argued that Ron is *not* like the Twins.  Nor do I think 
he wants to be like them; he wants to find his own niche.  
> 
> 15. What reasons could JKR have for giving us a roster of the 
> original Order?  Do you believe that some of the previously 
unknown 
> people mentioned in the photograph will show up in later books?  
 Will someone presumed dead turn out to be still living?  

If someone is still living, it will have to be Caradoc Dearborn, 
since all the other bodies are accounted for. ;-)
 
> 16. Does Mrs. Weasley's Boggart really conjure the image of both 
> twins dead together?  What does this tell us about her perception 
> of the twins?  What does it tell us about JKR's?  
> 
I think this says more about how JKR wrote the twins than how Mrs. 
Weasley sees her children.  I'm sure the LOONs will call me on this, 
but I can't think of a single scene in which both twins were not 
together.  (Someone else in this thread mentioned the fight after 
the first Quidditch.  Only George was involved in the fight, but 
that was only because the Chasers were already holding Fred back 
from the Slytherins.)    I see subtle differences between the twins 
but they do function as a unit in the story.  

> 17. Is Mrs. Weasley really reassured, or has she simply regained 
> her composure enough to feel embarrassed?  Why is she so 
> ashamed of her fear, and why doesn't she want her husband told 
> about it?  Do you think we'll be seeing more of Mrs. Weasley's 
> woes?  Do you think she'll be able to handle the stress of the 
> coming war?
> 

NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 and

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 as
well as

"OotP Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database