SHIP: Remus/Tonks and RL experiences (long)

[guzuguzu]

No: HPFGUIDX 136724

guz earlier: 
> > I agree that she is not the same person she was in OotP. The 
> > events at the end of that book hit her very, very hard.

Marianne:
  
> How do we know this?  Tonks appears to be her normal self at the 
> end of OoP when the group meets Harry at the train station, 
> complete with pink hair and a feisty addition to the warnings Moody 
> etal. give the Dursleys about not giving Harry a bad time.  Not 
> that I'm saying that Tonks is not saddened by Sirius' death, but 
> her appearance/attitude at King's Cross is completely in line with 
> what we've seen of her throughout OoP. I'm not suggesting that she 
> wasn't upset over Sirius' death, but she seemed completely Tonks-
> like at the station. (We have to assume she mourned Sirius, 
> because, like so many of these secondary stories, we are told about 
> it but do not witness the characters' actual behavior or hear their 
> words.)

guz: 

I just reread the passage you're referring to in OotP. I agree-- 
both Tonks and Lupin (who has just lost his best friend in the 
world) are portrayed here as completely their normal selves. Lupin 
is even described as speaking "pleasantly". Tonks' hair is pink, and 
we are given absolutely no indication that anything is amiss with 
her magic abilities. Why? Well, we can speculate storywise (maybe 
she pulled herself together for 10 minutes for Harry's sake? Maybe 
she's in shock?), but the real reason, which is the exact same 
reason that Harry couldn't see the thestrals at the end of GoF, is 
that it's bad writing form to introduce new information in the final 
pages of a book. Especially, in the example of the station scene at 
the end of OotP, because that scene is not about how the various 
characters are dealing with Sirius' death. It's about how Harry is 
not alone. 
 
Marianne:

> Actually, I found part of the red herring bit about Tonks a little 
> cheap, in the sense that part of the misdirection JKR threw at us 
> about her depression/attitude change was toted up to Sirius' 
> death, to the point where Harry wonders if she was in love with his 
> godfather.  But, no, most of this seemingly was Remus-angst.  It 
> bothered me that Harry seems to be the only person who has truly 
> mourned Sirius.  And I find that sad.

guz: 

Yeah, I do agree. As red herring plots go, Tonks is not a 
particularly effective one. I'm still not sure if we are supposed to 
interpret all her sadness as being caused by Remus-angst. For 
example, the scene where Harry finds her in Hogwarts and mentions 
Sirius and her eyes fill with tears. Was *that* about Remus? And I 
agree with you that it would have been nicer to hear someone besides 
Harry express grief for Sirius... for example: Remus. Oh well.

Marianne: 

> I think the "they're children's books" is a non-starter.  JKR has 
> said more than once that she's writing for herself, and not gearing 
> her story to please any particular segment of the book-buying 
> public. And it's always struck me as odd that the books can include 
> things like multiple murders, some of which happen on-screen, grave-
> robbing, self-mutilation, lying, cheating, rule-breaking, violence, 
> stories of government corruption, but, that they would stop short 
> of even a hint of homosexuality, because that's just way too 
> controvesial.  You may be perfectly right about that, guz, but, if 
> JKR is shying away from this because of controversy, then that's 
> really unfortunate.    

guz: 

This is an excellent point you bring up. Even if JKR says she's not 
writing for children, I think we can agree that the books are 
marketed towards children (and adults, too, but definitely children 
are a major market). Under the category of "adult themes" we have 
several subcategories, and there is a difference between "dark 
themes" and "controversial themes". All the things you mention: 
murders, grave-robbing, self-mutilation, lying, cheating, rule-
breaking, violence, government corruption, are dark, but they are 
not controversial. I think it's safe to say most people think these 
are Bad Things. On the other hand, homosexuality and pre/non-marital 
sex are *extremely* controversial issues that people have very 
different, and very volatile opinions on. And while JKR does use her 
books to open up questions of moral ambiguity (for example, is lying 
okay if it's for the greater good), I don't think one of JKR's goals 
for her series is to explore controversial issues. Is that because 
of "the children"?-- I don't know, really. It would be a good 
question to ask the author. Should she/ could she/ would she? Again, 
I don't know. ***There is a footnote in relation to this at the end 
of my post. 

My real point in originally bring that up was that I was trying to 
argue that what Lupin and Tonks were discussing was not, "Will you 
go out on a date with me on Saturday?," but an actual committed 
relationship. Whether that implies marriage or not, it doesn't 
really matter. 

guz earlier:
> > However, right after it says that Lupin is staring into the 
> > fire, we get the lyrics to Celestina's love song. That's not an 
> > accident. 


Marianne:
 
> This speaks to how people interpret what they've read.  If you are 
> one who has seen Remus/Sirius subtext in previous books, you'll 
> read this scene entirely differently than if you don't buy that 
> subtext.  And, after the hospital scene, I have to believe that JKR 
> intended this as Remus thinking about Tonks. But, again, since she 
> apparently wanted to play this as a surprise twist in hooking up 
> R/T, it didn't really work for me.  

guz: 

Ah-- okay-- I see where you're coming from. I'll start by saying 
that I think we all agree that personal preferences and real life 
experiences affect how we interpret the books. I'll also say that I 
never read the books thinking that we were supposed to view Remus 
and Sirius as anything more than friends and fellow soldiers. And, I 
have absolutely no personal preference to see them having a romantic 
relationship. 

Now, having said that, if I put myself into the position of someone 
who has been thinking all along that Remus and Sirius have been 
having a romantic relationship, then I *would* find the Tonks 
romance subplot to be horrific and the hospital scene quite 
sickening. If Remus had been grieving more than just a friend, but 
the love of his life, I would interpret the hospital scene as people 
coercing him into getting over Sirius and his homosexuality and 
settle down with a nice girl. And that is just terrible. But I 
didn't interpret it that way. 

I have never interpreted Remus to be, either literally or 
metaphorically, a homosexual. I have always interpreted him to be a 
metaphor for someone who is HIV+ (a contagious, degenerative disease 
that causes many people to react with irrational fear and hatred). 
The metaphor is not perfect, I know: someone infected with HIV as a 
child would not live as long as Remus has, and I know in some 
werewolf legends, they are super-strong and immortal, but I don't 
think in JKR's universe they are.

In my real life, I have experienced (through an HIV+ friend) the 
despair that comes of, "Who would ever love me? I'm contagious, I'm 
dying, and I'll leave heaps of medical bills when I go." It is 
heartbreaking. And this is why I find the Remus/Tonks relationship 
to be so, so beautiful. All of Remus's reasons are 100% true: Tonks 
*will* be opened up to danger, hatred and prejudice because of him, 
he *will* drain her bank account, and she *will* watch him get 
progressively sicker until he dies and leaves her a widow while 
she's relatively young. And because he cares for Tonks, he doesn't 
want to put her through that. And what she has been saying (a 
million times) is that he is worth the risk and the sacrifice. 

Now, am I projecting my personal experiences and preferences onto 
Remus and Tonks? No doubt. However, the idea of this plot is not 
new, nor unusual: the "love story between one HIV+ person and 
someone who is healthy" has been a major plotline in books, TV 
shows, and theater. And the story of "the love affair between the 
normal person and the doomed person" is a classic that has been 
around since the greek tragedies, so I don't think I'm projecting 
too much.    

<Lissa's point about we've seen no proof of Remus's feelings snipped>

guz earlier: 
> > The proof, for me, is that he has been talking about this "a 
> > million  times". Really. If it was really that he "just wasn't 
> > interested," it would not have gone that far.


Marianne:

> I think he's simply not going to argue the "million times" with 
> Tonks.  I think Lissa's point about is well taken. With whatever 
> Remus has been doing with the werewolves, it doesn't seem that 
> there has been a lot of time for him to spend with Tonks.  I read 
> this "million times" thing as a subtle hint of her immaturity 
> compared to his.  I'm not saying that she's acting like a kid or 
> that she is not an accomplished witch in her own right for her age 
> and what she has been doing.  But I can't see that they've spent 
> all this time together.  I see her falling into hyperbole because 
> she's been beating her hands bloody on this particular door, and he 
> keeps not giving her the answer she wants.

guz: 

Yes, Remus and Tonks do not spend time together for most of HBP. In 
fact, when Harry first comes to the Burrow in August, Tonks is 
*already purposely avoiding Remus*-- she turns down Molly's invite 
to dinner with him. She avoids him at Christmas, too. She is not 
physically chasing him down. And, yes, the "million times" is 
hyperbole, and she is emotionally overwhelmed and at her wits' end 
in the hospital scene. She grabs Remus and tries to literally shake 
some sense into him. Some people interpret that as pathetic begging, 
I interpret that as her desperate attempt to make him believe her 
when she says she's willing to risk everything for him. I think it's 
a beautiful moment. 

<snip discussion about what Remus and Tonks have respectively been 
going through this year> 

Marianne:

> Sure, she's having a tough year, but I don't know that we can boil 
> this down to who's having a harder time.  

guz: 

You're right, and I wasn't trying to. I was trying to respond to the 
arguement of "Why is Tonks laying all this crap on Remus when he's 
got so many other problems?" and trying to explain her extremely 
fragile emotional state. 

Marianne:

> She's battling her family, but are they that important to her?  Has 
> she had interactions with them, or has she been pretty much 
> separated from them all her life because her mother had the 
> temerity to marry the wrong kind of man?  I'm not convinced Tonks 
> is suffering from family angst with regards to the actions of the 
> creepy side of the Black family.

guz: 

You're right-- this is total speculation on my part. I find Tonks to 
be a fascinating character. One side of her extended family are Dark 
wizards and witches, and the other side are muggles. She is an auror-
- an elite fighter whose job it is to hunt down Dark wizards. Does 
she feel any conflict, or has she completely detached herself like 
Sirius? We probably will never find out in canon. 

Marianne:
 
> Tonks at least has a place in Wizard society.  It's Remus' second 
> go-round fighting evil, and he can be pretty sure that no matter 
> what he does, however bravely he fights or however much effort, 
> strength and blood he sheds in this battle, no one will thank him 
> for it or even stop to consider that maybe werewolves are part of 
> humanity.

guz: 

No one will? Tonks will! ;-)

guz earlier:

> > Nah, he's been giving Tonks Harry's "I'm a loner Dottie, a 
> > rebel..." speech. I don't think Lupin has any problems with being 
> > liked, it's being loved that's freaking him out. And I honestly 
> > think that until Tonks, Lupin had never considered that he could 
> > have a relationship with a "normal person" -- his words.
 
Marianne:

> Again, I'm not sure here.  Remus thought he'd never have friends, 
> and he found three people who accepted him and undertook dangerous 
> magic to try to help him. Granted, there was probably an element of 
> danger and rebelliousness and "aren't we so clever to have figured 
> out this Animagus thing?" going on, but Remus knows that people 
> have accepted him before.  

guz: 

This is true-- however there's a big difference between those 
friendships and a romantic relationship. There are no real risks or 
sacrifices to being friends with Remus, as long as you stay away 
from him at full moon (or turn into an animal). There *are* risks 
and sacrifices to being Remus's life partner-- and he correctly 
points them out.

Marianne:

> On the other hand, Remus has also lost these three friends, so he 
> may very well be extremely hesitant to allow anyone else to get 
> that close to him again.

guz: 

I agree-- I am sure this is going on. It's going on big time with 
Harry, too. Everyone he cares about dies on him.

<snip discussion about Tonks' begging in the hosptial scene>

Marianne: 

> Yes, everyone in the hospital wing is not telling him to 
> be grateful, but they are certainly telling him to give it up and, 
> as Molly says, stop being ridiculous. So, he does have a roomful of 
> people who are essentially telling him that he's wrong.

guz: 

I think we need to agree to disagree on this. Some people interpret 
this as Remus saying he is truly not interested in Tonks (for 
whatever reason: he's gay, he's still mourning Sirius, he's not 
attracted to her). I interpret this as him caring about Tonks but 
not wanting to burden her with the problems a relationship with him 
would bring. He says, "Tonks deserves someone young and whole." He 
says that he's less than whole. He believes himself less than human.

Marianne: 
 
> And, just as an aside, I'm sure I'm just getting way too cynical in 
> my old age, but when McGonagall uttered that line about Dumbledore 
> would have been happy to know that there was a little more love in 
> the world, I absolutely cringed.  I mean, it's a nice sentiment, 
> but somehow the delivery made me think "Is the guy from Hallmark in 
> the room taking notes?"

guz: 

LOL! Yup-- there is a fine line between a classic and a cliche. "We 
need a little more love in the world" definitely toes that line. And 
I thought it was interesting that it's stern, no-nonsense McGonagall 
who says it. Ah well, I admit that I am a hopeless romantic. I'm 
probably the only one who was touched by the description of Filch 
and Madam Pince standing next to each other at the funeral.

***And as a footnote to the discussion of homosexuality represented 
by metaphor in the books, I think there is a strong arguement to be 
made that they are represented by vampires. Percy states that there 
are people who think that they should be "stamping out vampires" 
instead of worrying about cauldron standards, but the candy shop 
stocks candy just for them, and Slughorn invites one to his party. 
Just a thought.