CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 148529

> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
> 10, The House of Gaunt <snip exemplary summary>

> 1. <snip> Why did Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is
it necessary foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly
troubled, one who dislikes the questioner"?

Carol responds:
I'm not sure that it's *necessary* foreshadowing, but it certainly
increases the tension and suspense. It also suggests that Trelawney
does have powers as a Seer, which she, in this case, rejects with
"That can't be right." I don't know Tarot, but I'm pretty sure that
the Reader (Trelawney) is not the same person as the Questioner, who
would seem to be Harry since he's the nearest person and his aura
would influence the reading. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Tarot experts!)
That being the case, the "dark young man" has to be Snape, who
dislikes Harry (and is, we know, about to play a key role in the
conflict). "Possibly troubled" qualifies as the understatement of the
year.

> 2.<snip> Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking
> narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character?

Carol:
Merope must be able to speak if she invites Tom in for a drink of
"water" and later takes her marriage vows, not to mention her later
confession that she's a witch who "tricked" him. Oh, and we know she
can speak because she told the orphanage officials to name her son Tom
Marvolo Riddle after his father and grandfather. That she doesn't
speak in this scene merely emphasizes her abject and downtrodden state
and her terror of her father. As for the character of her voice, I'm
afraid I don't understand the question.
> 
> 3. <snip>
> Dumbledore comments that the Gaunts were "noted for a vein of
instability and violence that flourished through the generations due
to their habit of marrying their own cousins." They had also been
high-living profligates. If we accept that specific personality traits
can be inherited in the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort
specifically inherit from the Gaunts?

Carol:
How about "instability and violence"? Certainly he inherited
Parseltongue, which, while not a personality trait, made him feel
"special." Like his grandfather and Morfin, he's antisocial (though
he's able, thanks to his father's genes, to conceal this trait with
charm) and obsessed with power, controlling those weaker than he is
(Merope in Marvolo's case, Muggles and snakes in Morfin's) and he has
even more cause than they do (not necessarily inherited) to hate
Muggles. I think he was born a sociopath, a ticking time bomb, and
even if he'd been raised by his father and loved by him and a
stepmother, he'd have been one dangerous child. And if he'd been
raised by Merope, swamped with obsessive because he looked like his
father--well, best not to think about it.
> 
> 4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts
so far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the Gaunts
> married into any other pureblood families. 

Carol:
I can't agree here. First, we know that they intermarried with the
Slytherins or Tom Jr. could not have been the Heir of Slytherin and
the Gaunts could not have spoken Parseltongue. We don't know at what
point that marriage occurred. They also intermarried with the
Peverells, and a Peverell was clearly Marvolo's ancestor, not his
wife's, or he wouldn't have worn the ring; he'd have given it to
Morfin. So we have at least three bloodlines, one of them (Slytherin)
extinct by this time. It's possible that there were more Peverells,
who, as cousins (not necessarily first cousins) would be eligible
marriage partners, but I'm inclined to think that line is also extinct
or Marvolo wouldn't have the ring. Perhaps his mother was the last
Peverell and his paternal grandmother the last Slytherin?

Lealess:
> Gaunt himself may have been prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline
die with Merope and Morfin.

Carol:
The Slytherin bloodline was already extinct if they were Slytherin's
last descendants. (The line dies with the last male of the name even
though the "blood" passes to the next generation.) It would be the
Gaunt bloodline that he would have allowed to die out. And certainly
he seems not to care about the future, only the "purity" of his
ancestors. Maybe he realizes that no one, not even another Gaunt if
there are any, would want his unstable, wall-eyed,
Parseltongue-speaking children as marriage partners. More likely, he
wants to keep things as they are, a brutal father controlling his
adult children, with no concern for their welfare or happiness.

Lealess:
> The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. 
With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess
wands, or make their living? How did Merope learn the magic she used
once her father and brother were gone?
> 
Carol:
I'm not sure that Marvolo is unaware of the laws, but he's certainly
indifferent to them and has passed on that indifference to his
children. (I think that Morfin know it's illegal to hex Muggles but
doesn't care. Merope, however, may not know that it's illegal to give
them love potions.) I don't think that they earn a living. They must
live on whatever is left of their inheritance from the various
pureblood families they're descended from. As for wands--good
question. Possibly Merope inherited her mother's wand and Morfin's is
a hand-me-down from a dead relative or ancestor. Marvolo could have
acquired his in the normal way before he went off the deep end.

> 5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with
the ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) offered
Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant enough to the
Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the family's
squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection important? 

Carol:
Ugly or not, the ring links the Gaunts with another pureblood family,
the Peverells, just as the locket links them with the Slytherins.
Neither is a Gaunt heirloom per se, but both are linked to Marvolo
Gaunt's ancestry. The only reason Merope wears the locket is that
she's a girl, and Marvolo wouldn't wear women's jewelry. It probably
belonged to his mother or grandmother, as speculated above. Money
isn't important to Marvolo, who would rather live in squalor than part
with these family heirlooms. So, yes, the Peverell connection is
important to Marvolo, whether or not it's important to the story.
(It's important to Tom Jr., too--important enough for him to steal the
ring and make it into his first standard, noninteractive Horcrux.)

Lealess:
> Why is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold until book 7?

Carol:
I don't quite understand this question. If you mean the Peverell
connection, I don't think we'll get any more on that. But Dumbledore
puts off telling Harry that the ring is a Horcrux because he's waiting
for Slughorn's memory. As for Snape's role in healing him from the
ring curse, which has to wait for the same reason, if Dumbledore had
told Harry the full story, maybe Harry would understand Snape a bit
better and believe in his loyalty to Dumbledore, and then where would
the story be? (Another of DD's "huge" mistakes, imparting too little
knowledge too late.)
> 
> 6. <snip> What is he teaching Harry in this lesson? Why was it
important to use the Pensieve in this instance instead of just telling
Harry the information? 

Carol:
Because seeing the Gaunts is much more effective than hearing about
them, just as narrative is more compelling for the reader than
exposition. This is Voldemort's backstory--his ancestry, his future
victims (the father he murdered and the uncle he framed), his future
Horcruxes. Their home is the hiding place of the ring Horcrux. Without
this scene, it's impossible to understand Merope's actions or how Tom
Jr. could frame Morfin. It's a prequel to the scene with Morfin and
Tom Jr. (who must have received a nasty shock on seeing his last Gaunt
relative, not that the shock in any way excuses him) in a later chapter.

Lealess:
> Dumbledore admits to being really clever, but capable of making
correspondingly huge mistakes. What if Dumbledore is wrong about his
"guesswork"? Who is Dumbledore answerable to if he is wrong?

Carol:
I don't think he's wrong in his guesswork up to this point. It's clear
that Merope gave Tom Sr. a love potion, that he deserted her and their
unborn child and claimed to be "hoodwinked," that Morfin had a record
of baiting Tom Sr. and was therefore the perfect person for Tom Jr. to
frame for the murder of the Riddles. More important, the ring is a
Horcrux and its history lays the groundwork for the other, as yet
undiscovered, Horcruxes. At most, he might be wrong about the
Ravenclaw or Gryffindor Horcrux, or about Nagini, but he admits to
speculation at that point. He's not answerable to anyone. The buck
stops here.
 
> 7. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important that Harry know
about Voldemort's past, that it has "everything to do with the
prophecy." What do the Gaunts, as part of Voldemort's past, have to do
with the prophecy? <snip>

Carol:
At face value, not much! But the Gaunts connect with the Horcruxes and
consequently the means by which Harry will defeat the Dark Lord. They
also connect with "marking him as his equal" in the sense that the
powers Harry acquires at Godric's Hollow, or at least Parseltongue,
are inherited from Merope and Marvolo. I would guess that LV's skill
at Legilimency, which he seems to have been born with ("Tell the
truth!" says eleven-year-old Tom several times in an earlier chapter),
and the power of possession come from them (though they may have
skipped several generations). BTW, I think Harry will defeat Voldemort
by possessing him, turning the MoM possession scene on its head, and
that power is evidently "inherited" via the Gaunts, as is
Parseltongue, which will IMO play a part in the destruction of Nagini.
 
> 8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of
parents, if not teachers? <snip> Voldemort was descended from the
debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and he is
therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James Potter; they
were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry to be good, even
if Harry was raised without love. It becomes pointless to teach moral
lessons. All Dumbledore has to do is sit back and observe how people
show their moral character. Is this, in fact, the assumption on which
Dumbledore operates? In shielding Harry from the entire truth, is
Dumbledore continuing to do what he was doing pre-office scene in
OOTP: namely, choosing easy over right when it comes to Harry?

Carol:
I hope not! It seems to me that DD guides Harry very gently, praises
him when he makes the right choices, but leaves him to make his own
choices and his own mistakes. The same, I think, is true of his
treatment of Snape, whom he occasionally reprimands but generally
allows to do as he pleases, trusting to his loyalty. I think DD
believes that trust in people and confidence in their abilities will
bring out the best in people--with the exception of young Tom Riddle,
whom he watches but does not trust. (DD refuses to hire him as a
teacher, knowing that he has murdered his own father and grandfather
and that he's recruiting followers, and suspecting even then that the
blurring of his features indicates an evil beyond redemption. He's the
only person I know of to whom DD refuses to grant a second chance.)
But as to the teaching of moral lessons in the WW, you've hit on a
failing in the system. Hogwarts does nothing to undo the values that
its students learn at home. It only enables them to earn a living and
survive the hardships of existence in the WW. (At least DD has banned
whipping and Transfiguration as punishments; but he seems to think
that experience is the best teacher and that students and staff must
be left free to make their own decisions--rather like Milton's view of
God and Adam, whom God creates "sufficient to have stood, but free to
fall.")

> 9. <snip> Morfin's violence might have been bound to escalate, and
he did admit to hexing Tom Sr. But he may also have been inbred to
such a degree that he could not form a concept of right and wrong.
Similarly, it may have been difficult for Merope to form a concept of
right and wrong, especially as she had no outside guidance or help.
<snip> What does the Gaunts' interaction with Wizarding law,
especially as regards Muggles, say about that law?

Carol:
First, I think what's more important is Marvolo Gaunt's failure to
teach his children right from wrong, which has disastrous consequences
for them both, especially what seems to be their inability to reach
such conclusions for themselves. His failure to love them, especially
Merope, is especially devastating. Laws or no laws, if they had been
properly taught, and if they had the intelligence to comprehend those
lessons (which is debatable), they would not have harmed those weaker
than themselves (magic is power), whether snakes or Muggles. As for
the law, at least Morfin is arrested, and his father as well, but
their punishment doesn't change their values. It merely frees Merope
to act on her obsessive love, never having learned that you can't make
someone love you. I don't think it's the laws that are at fault,
unless it the Statute of Secrecy, which necessitates all the
Obliviating. I think it's the poor upbringing and Marvolo's absurd
belief in his own superiority that makes the younger Gaunts oblivious
to morality. Even someone with the limited intelligence of Morfin
Gaunt could have been taught to be kind to animals--unless the
inbreeding is so severe in his case that he should have been
institutionalized from birth, and I'm reluctant to suggest that.
> 
> 10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron
read the Prince's instructions?

Carol responds:
A "cheat," as Neri would call it? After all, it's Harry who wears
glasses! Or maybe it's part of Harry's unrecognized affinity with
Slytherins, and Severus in particular? I hate to say it, but Ron's
inability to read the Prince's writing seems to me to be a plot
device. The handwriting is "minuscule and cramped" but not unreadable.
Maybe Harry is more driven by curiosity, especially after he receives
such unexpectedly good results from following the Prince's
instructions, but the important thing is his attraction to the Prince,
his recognition of his genius, his reliance on him in Potions class
(learning from Snape as he claims never to have learned from Snape!),
the whole delicious irony of the situation, which has to happen to
Harry, not Ron, because of the complex relationship between Harry and
the man he so desperately and determinedly hates, and because Harry,
not Ron, is the hero of the story who will have to deal again with the
Half-Blood Prince in Book 7.

Lealess:
> Hermione won't try to read them because she is opposed to "cheating"
with the HBP book – is this the real reason?

Carol:
Yes and no. She doesn't like Harry's suddenly receiving higher marks
than hers in Potions, especially since he isn't doing the work on his
own as she is and doesn't understand the theory as she does. It really
*is* unfair, IMO, for Harry to be awarded the Felix Felicis for
turning in a bezoar (on the basis of a sardonic little note in the
Prince's book) when Hermione has followed the instructions and created
antidotes based on Goloplott's Law (sp), showing that she fully
understands both the theory and the assignment. But Hermione isn't
opposed to "cheating" in the sense of helping the boys with their
homework, and she resents a book that yields superior results to the
official textbook. So Hermione seems to have mixed motives here. She's
never been jealous of Harry in the one subject in which he is
genuinely better than she is, DADA, but Potions is another matter. She
has listened to Snape, unlike Harry and Ron. She has always received
high marks in Potions despite Snape's view of her as "an insufferable
know-it-all." She received an O on her Potions OWL. She knows
perfectly well that Harry has not inherited Lily's skill in Potions;
it comes from that "unofficial" textbook. She's right that Harry
should be cautious in following instructions from an unknown source
and that he should not be taking credit for work that his not his own,
but her motives for condemning both Harry's behavior and the book
itself are not pure. Ironically, it's Harry who revels in and benefits
from young Snape's genius and Hermione who rejects it. (And thank
goodness Harry learns that Bezoar lesson!)

Lealess:
>  Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's?

Hermione:
Maybe she's basing her view on stereotypes (it's small; therefore,
it's a girl's). Maybe it resembles hers: Write small and you can get
more words on the page, as we see young Severus doing in his DADA OWL
in OoP. (As a former teacher, I know that writing small allows you to
get more comments into the margins!) BTW, I do see a resemblance
between Snape and Hermione in their ability to memorize textbooks and
understand theoretical as well as practical magic (though he was
clearly more creative and willing to go beyond the book whereas
Hermione is still restricted by her view that, aside from the
"revised" History of Hogwarts, truth is to be found in books). Maybe
she *wants* the Prince to be a girl simply because she resents what
she takes to be Harry's and Ron's assumption that a genius must be a
boy. Mostly, though, it's a red herring leading her and us to Eileen
Prince--and through Eileen to another tiny morsel of Severus Snape's
history.

Carol, who felt challenged by these questions and is glad that she's
not limited to twelve inches of parchment!