Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 160981

Betsy Hp wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > Molly is there because her family is there.  She has not had to
proactively *do* anything. Yes it's hard to realize that her family is
out there and in danger.  But it's something that's happened to Molly.
 It's not a choice she's made.

Carol responds:
First, the problem with a thread like this one is that it's primarily
a matter of a reader's emotional response to a character. All the
arguments in the world can't persuade a reader to feel sympathy for a
character he considers unsympathetic. Unless I'm very much mistaken,
you're not going to make Charles feel sorry for Narcissa, and he's not
going to persuade you to like Molly. 

But let's look at Molly and the Order. Yes, most of her family are
members, but is that he reason for joining? Are you sure it's not a
choice on her part? Remember, even though her brothers were Order
members killed fighting Voldemort or his DEs, neither Arthur nor Molly
were members of the original Order. They become members moer or less
by default at the end of GoF when Dumbledore sends Bill to tell his
father about Voldemort's return. As Dumbledore says, "All those that
we can persuade of the truth must be notified immediately" (GoF Am.
ed. 711). So in addition to Sirius Black, the only person present who
was a member of the original Order (and whom he sends out to contact
Lupin, Figgy, Mundungus, and the rest of "the old crowd"), Dumbledore
now inducts Bill, Arthur, Snape (his ally and longtime spy but not a
member of the original Order), Hagrid and Madame Maxime, McGonagall,
and possibly Madam Pomfrey (who may simply be sent on an errand to
Winky). Though he doesn't assign her a specific errand and leaves her
to watch and comfort Harry, Dumbledore has allowed Molly to witness
every one of these assignments, including Snape's dangerous but
unspecified mission. Clearly, she's included in those who can be
persuaded of the truth. She's persuaded already. And next time we see
her, she's an official member of the Order. I'd say it was most likely
her own choice and not because her husband and oldest sons are in the
Order. She know more at this point than Arthur does, Charlie has not
been recruited, and Bill is sent off before McGonagall is sent to
fetch Hagrid and Madam Maxime and before Sirius Black and Severus
Snape are sent on their respective missions. Clearly, Molly is in a
position of trust for her own merits, not those of her family.

As for what Molly does for the Order, I'm pretty sure that she takes
her turn guarding the Prophecy, as everyone from Sturgis Podmore to
Tonks does. (If someone can spot a canon reference to confirm this
speculation, I'd appreciate it.) But as Charles points out, cooking
and cleaning for the Order is also important. Someone has to do it,
and Sirius Black won't, though it's his house, nor does he order
Kreacher to do it. The Order needs Molly to do what she does best,
keeping house. But that can't be all she does, or there would be no
point in her attending meetings or listening to Snape's presentation.
(I wish we'd been allowed to eavesdrop on that one!)

> Betsy Hp:
> But I don't see those activities.  Which is my point.  This 
> discussion started when I said I saw (personally) more to admire in 
> Narcissa than in Molly.  And I explained that the reason I saw more 
> to admire is because I got to witness Narcissa doing something 
> proactive to protect her child.  I even went so far as to state that 
> the comparison was inherently flawed *because* we've not seen Molly 
> take some sort of proactive action.  There's no fair way to figure 
> out what Molly would do in Narcissa's place.
> 
> So I don't care if Molly is doing all sorts of things behind the 
> scenes.  I'm going by what I've seen. <snip>

Carol responds:
I've already answered the point about Molly's activities, which as
Charles says, must exist. We don't see most of Lupin's activities,
either, or most of Snape's, but we believe in them. Nor do we see
bill's until the skirmish with the DEs at Hogwarts. Perhaps duelling
is not Molly's strong point, but that doesn't mean she's not a
valuable Order member for other reasons. FWIW, Arthur wasn't at the
MoM on the night Sirius Black died, but I don't see you denying his
activities. I don't want to sound sarcastic because that's not my
intention, but does being bitten by Nagini when he fell asleep on duty
show that he does more for the Order than Molly does?

As for proactively (I hate that word) protecting her child, when has
Molly had the opportunity to do so? She can't protect the kids from
dangers at school (the hazards of a Hogwarts education, and of being
on a Quidditch team, are a fact of WW life), nor can she protect Bill
and Charlie from their hazardous professions. Was she supposed to step
in front of Bill and protect him from Fenrir Greyback? I don't think
many adult sons want such protection from their mothers even if the
mother is physically stronger (not likely) or better at duelling than
they are. It's not as if Dumbledore has sent one of her children into
mortal danger, or as if she can keep Harry, whom she regards as a son,
from entering the TWT or fulfilling his destiny. There's nothing
comparable to Draco's assignment in Molly's story so far, only the
knowledge that her entire family is in "mortal peril" (stupid
clock--it would be better if it had shown Bill in mortal peril and the
others at school!). And if, say, Ron were given an assignment
comparable to Draco's, who would Molly go to? Dumbledore would be the
one who had given the assignment, and there's no one left to appeal to
with authority over him. 
> 

> Betsy Hp:
> She was also chief complainer and most likely to hit shrill at any 
> given moment. <g>  Anyway, cooking, cleaning, nagging and 
> undermining aren't too likely to switch Molly off my "disliked 
> character's" list. <snip>

Carol responds:
But this is just your personal reaction to Molly. You don't like her.
But that doesn't mean she isn't doing the best she can do in a
situation whose dangers are everpresent yet unspecified. And she has
seven children plus Harry and her husband to worry about. No wonder
she dreams about their deaths and is too devastated by her horrible
boggart (much worse than Lupin's full moon) to do anything about it.
(Maybe Lupin could give her some anti-Boggart lessons rather than
taking care of it for her. That might be useful.)

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Right, the way I see Molly (and erm, this won't be popular) she's 
> basically weak and stupid. <snip>

Carol responds:
Ah, but is this a fair assessment? Molly's eyes have been opened in
the last few books. Maybe you should reserve judgment until Book 4?
> 
Betsy Hp:
> It's the same reason I think Molly's favorite sons have always been 
> the twins.  I think she sees them as proper boys -- all piss and 
> vinegar.  Poor Percy tried for years to become Molly's beloved by 
> doing everything she *said* she wanted a perfect son.  But the twins 
> followed her actions, and they took top spot.  (I wouldn't be 
> surprised if they're a lot like her brothers were.) 

Carol responds:
I'm not sure I agree. Probably we should look at the canon here, for
example Molly being the only one to show joy because Percy showed up
at Christmas and Molly's remarks about "Percy wouldn't have done such
and such' (comparing him with the Twins in OoP), which cause the
others to glare at her. Molly is in mounring for Percy and shedding
tears over him. She forgives him for returning the jumper she knitted
him and still wants him back in the family. And "dead Percy" is as
much a part of her Boggart as "dead Twins" and dead Ron." (FWIW, I
think that Ginny and Charlie were left out only because the Boggart
hadn't got to them yet or because it had already shown them before
Harry arrived. I don't think it shows that she cares less about those
two or has fewer fears for them. Family is everything to Molly, and
Harry counts as family, surely a point in Molly's favor.)

> Betsy Hp:
> Exactly.  I don't like Narcissa's beliefs.  But I do admire her 
> actions.  A mother's love for her child is not an example of evil.  
> At least, not IMO. <big snip>

Carol responds:

I don't think that anyone is arguing that Narcissa's love for her only
child is evil, only that evil people can love their families,
especially their children, as much as good people can. And I believe
that's one of the points that JKR is making in "Spinner's End." Until
that chapter, I thought that Narcissa merely indulged Draco, sending
him sweets as Petunia would send them to Dudley if they weren't
Muggles, and wanting to keep him (relatively) close by rather than
sending him to Durmstrang. (It's not the Dark Arts taught at
Durmstrang that she objects to. It's having Draco so very far away.) I
really liked the way "Spinner's End" showed the human side of the
Death Eaters and their sympathizers. For all her nastiness with regard
to Muggleborns, all her apparent abuse of Dobby (the whole family, in
his view, is "bad, Dark wizards"), and all her support of Voldemort
(not in the least affected by the perilous mission he's assigned to
Draco, as far as I can see), Narcissa loves her son and is loyal to
her husband. I'm not sure that I consider going to Snape courageous,
except that she stand up to big sister Bellatrix and hits her with a
stinging hex, but I was glad to see JKR showing that the DEs have a
human side. Unlike Voldemort, they're not cartoon villains. Even the
fanatical Bella actually cares about "Cissy" and doesn't want her to
defy Voldemort. Of course, given a choice, Bella (who would willingly
sacrifice her fortunately nonexistent sons for the cause), would
support her master over her family, but even she cares about her
sister. I found that an amazing revelation, myself.

Carol, not trying to change anyone's feelings of sympathy (or lack of
it) for a particular character but just trying to analyze Molly and
Narcissa objectively in terms of what canon reveals