CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt
horridporrid03
horridporrid03 at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 22 03:01:49 UTC 2006
No: HPFGUIDX 148550
> >>Lealess:
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,
> Chapter 10, The House of Gaunt
> <snip of summary>
> 1. Harry goes to great lengths to hide from Trelawney. In spite of
> this, he overhears a fortune-telling. Trelawney's card reading has
> been the subject of examination by those who know the Tarot. 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"?
Betsy Hp:
The foreshadowing is important, just for sheer tension, I think. It
also reminds the reader of Trelawney's existence and shows her
agitated mental state (the whiff of sherry, etc.). The fact that
Hogwarts' resident seerer is troubled helps set the mood for big
events to come. (I think we also get a hint that Tarot signs may
contain clues, IOW, don't ignore chapter titles.)
I think Trelawney is the questioner (I'm sure she's trying to read
her own fortune) so that would make Harry the "dark young man",
right? I'm curious about her "that can't be right", though. Is she
questioning the questioner not being liked or did she draw another
card?
> 2. Merope does not really speak in this chapter, or anywhere else
> in the book. Her few words are related by other characters. Yet,
> according to Dumbledore, she does speak for herself through her
> subsequent actions, although he speculates those actions are
> underhanded. Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking
> narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character?
Betsy Hp:
It certainly speaks towards Merope's feelings of helplessness. And
it also hints, I think, at her inability to trust in herself at
all. There's also a bit of a blank slate at work here. The reader
is able to fill in their own voice for hers. Which helps to envoke,
I think, a feeling of sympathy towards a girl that will later
destroy an innocent muggle to escape her own family. What is
interesting is that despite her father's horrible treatment, she
wants her son to have his name. There's a lot going on with Merope,
but JKR (wisely, I think) leaves most of it unsaid.
> 3. The Gaunts are said to have married their cousins, a line which
> dwindled to the present Gaunts. Marrying cousins is claimed to be a
> bad thing because recessive genes can become dominant in resulting
> children.
> <snip>
> If we accept that specific personality traits can be inherited in
> the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort specifically inherit from
> the Gaunts?
Betsy Hp:
I think the Gaunts are a collapsed family line. I'm sure they
started out fairly branchy, but I think their family tree has become
more and more of a straight line. Which is never a good thing. (Ask
any dog breeder.) Voldemort's obsessiveness (*seven* horcruxes)
could be seen as a form of mental instability, I suppose. As could
his temper. (Doesn't he take on some Gaunt looks when he gets
angry? I seem to recall Harry witnessing such an occurance.)
> 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. Gaunt himself
> may have been prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with
> Merope and Morfin.
Betsy Hp:
Ooh, I'm betting Gaunt was pleased to have both a daughter and a son
to be getting on with. Which, yes, total ick, but not,
unfortunately, unheard of.
> 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?
Betsy Hp:
Interestingly enough Gaunt questions whether it's illegal to teach
muggles' lessons *now*. Which leads me to believe that there was a
time when the MoM was a bit more lenient towards wizards attacking
muggles, but the laws have since changed.
So, I'm thinking Gaunt seperated from the WW within his own life-
time. Possibly after the death of his wife? Or possibly when the
MoM started making the sort of policy changes that resulted in it
being illegal to set muggles in their place. Guant probably took
what he needed with him. Anything else I'm betting he stole from
the local village (wouldn't be hard for a wizard).
I doubt he traded furs or home-made brew or anything of that sort
because of his distrust of any wizard not pure-blood coupled with
his distrust that any other wizard really *was* pure.
It wouldn't surprise me if he taught his children to make their own
wands or if family wands were kept and handed down. As the family
lines collapsed inwards that would leave a lot of old wands to
choose from. (Though I also imagine anything worth anything was
slowly sold away.) But I'm sure magical learning was handed down
through the family. Merope would have learned from her mother and
possibly her father too. (Though I suspect a division made
between "women's magic" and "men's magic".)
> 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? Why is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold
> until book 7?
Betsy Hp:
I imagine the ring was the "male" heirloom as the locket was
the "female" heirloom. Both were too important to sell because both
were manifestations of the only thing the Gaunts had left, their
blood. I doubt there's any story left to be told. The end of the
Peverall family line is story enough, echoed by the Blacks and the
Crouchs. (Adapt or die?)
> 6. Dumbledore initiates this journey with Harry, but on two
> occasions, he does not answer Harry's questions about the heirloom
> ring. This is an opportunity to see Dumbledore as a teacher,
> although not in a classroom in specialized circumstances. 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? 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?
Betsy Hp:
Harry, I guess. It is Harry's life he's trying to protect, isn't
it? Which is why it's important Harry see these scenes for
himself. Harry needs to have his *own* sense of who Voldemort is,
where he comes from (because blood *is* important in this series) so
he can make up his own mind. I'm quite confident Dumbledore made
some wrong "guesses", and that Harry will have to make up his own
mind on some things down the road. Otherwise, why the
foreshadowing? I think Dumbledore was trying to teach Harry to
think for himself.
> 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>
Betsy Hp:
The prophecy has been shaped by Voldemort. Voldemort's choices made
the prophecy, in a way. So to understand the prophecy is to
understand Voldemort. And this is Voldemort's blood, and Voldemort
chose to make his family line important
> 8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of
> parents, if not teachers? Dumbledore has in Harry a virtual orphan,
> like Tom Jr. was, a person raised with a dearth of love and with
> ineffective parental guidance. But Dumbledore, when faced with an
> opportunity to reinforce the message of a teacher who gave a
> detention based on disrespect or to address a lesson in privacy
> based on Pensieve misuse, sidesteps the issue. Dumbledore says he
> has told Harry the truth, but he hasn't told him the complete
> truth; for example, he didn't tell him that Snape was the
> eavesdropper at the Hog's Head. Dumbledore trusts Harry to know
> right from wrong, based on years of observation but observation
> alone did not work with Tom Jr. It seems that Rowling is
> concluding, through Dumbledore, that people are born with
> a "blood"-derived moral sense. 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?
Betsy Hp:
Hmm, we're tackling the main theme of the books here aren't we? Is
it your blood that defines you, or your choices? I think there is
an ability to gain strength, etc., from your family. (There is an
importance to family.) And Voldemort certainly makes a lot of the
fact that he's Slytherin's heir. But there also seems to be a sense
that one *can* move beyond one's family. Draco seems poised to make
that sort of choice. Harry may make a similar move if he's able to
see Snape in a new light.
Dumbledore places a *ton* of importance on allowing the children in
his care to find their own way. He allows the children a choice.
Which could be seen as taking the easy route, yes. But standing
aside isn't always easy. (Dumbledore did not stand aside throughout
OotP, and it was a disaster for Harry.)
> 9. The Wizengamot is responsible for enforcing Wizarding law at the
> time Morfin broke the law by performing magic in front of Muggles.
> But as Gaunt pointed out, there was no real consequence to
> breaking the law. The Ministry corrected the harm done to Muggle
> Tom and erased his memory of the hex. 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. Ogden provided
> only personal protection for Merope when she was abused by her
> father, but did not charge Marvolo with assault. Merope herself
> was not imprisoned for enchanting Tom Riddle Sr., a Muggle
> previously targeted by her family, and one who was subsequently
> spirited away under mysterious circumstances. What does the Gaunts'
> interaction with Wizarding law, especially as regards Muggles, say
> about that law?
Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I'm not going to buy that "too stupid to realize I done wrong"
argument. There's nothing to really back it up, and I think it lets
Merope and Morfin off the hook far too easily. I'm sure they were
brought up to see Muggles as lesser than (as has every wizard we've
met in the books, unfortunately) but that strikes me as too easy.
Especially for what was done to poor Tom (who, if he hadn't had his
memory erased might have known to steer clear of the Gaunts).
Frankly, the view of the WW towards Muggles is disturbing. I don't
like how the parents of Muggle-born wizards are treated. I don't
like how any of the wizards we've met treat muggles. I don't like
how Dumbledore himself, treats muggles. Unfortunately, when it
comes to muggles, it seems that might makes right.
> 10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron
> read the Prince's instructions?
Betsy Hp:
I think it shows that Harry has a special connection to the Prince.
He understands him in a way that Ron and Hermione cannot.
> Hermione won't try to read them because she is opposed
> to "cheating" with the HBP book is this the real reason?
Betsy Hp:
I think Hermione is threatened by Harry getting another source for
study help. (I recall reading a discussion about Hermione's place
in the trio and how she defines herself by her smarts. She *likes*
helping the boys with their work, that's who she is. Cannot remember
where I read it though, sorry!) So I think it's more the threat the
Prince brings than an actual worry about cheating. (Doesn't she
cheat in the very next chapter?)
> Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's?
Betsy Hp:
Oddly enough, I took it as a bit of a slam. I mean, yes, part of it
is probably that girls are smart too, but I also got the impression
that Hermione was trying to dig at Harry. ("Your new best friend is
a *girl*.) Hermione isn't really all about girl power, is she? She
holds most of the girls around her with a bit of contempt. So I can
see her as capable of using "girl" as a sneer, especially as how
she'd see her boys reacting to girls.
Really great questions, Lealess, I feel like I've only scratched the
surface of them.
Betsy Hp
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive