Father Figures / Hermione's Path / The Molly Question (long!) (was:Wanted!Comple

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 164730

Betsy Hp:
I feel like this particular thread is breaking into three different 
discussion points.  So I'm going to seperate them out as I see them 
(cleverly using only one post to do so <g>) and see what holds 
interest.
 
*******
So, first up, Father Figures:

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So she's not a make or break part of the story like say, Sirius   
> > or Lupin are.
 
> >>zgirnius:
> Lupin was a make or break part of PoA. I would not say he is the   
> same to the story as a whole. I don't see that he has had more     
> emotional impact on Harry than McG.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I *strongly* disagree.  Fandom has never spent time wondering when 
McGonagall is going to get off her duff and become a mother-figure 
for Harry.  But between every book since Lupin's introduction there's 
a large group of readers just sure Lupin is going to have a huge role 
in the next book as one of Harry's father-figures.  I think there's a 
reason for that.

Part of it has to do with the amount of personal time Lupin spent 
with Harry in PoA.  Part of it has to do with the emotional 
connection Lupin made with Harry: an emotional connection no other 
adult has ever made.  Lupin was able to slow Harry down while Harry 
was in the middle of "mission mode" and get Harry to think. (Once 
after sneaking out to Hogsmeade, and more obviously in the Shrieking 
Shack.)  McGonagall has never done the same.

She could have, I think, had JKR chosen to go that route.  As Harry's 
head of house, McGonagall could well have taken time to get to know 
Harry personally and given Harry a chance to get to know her.  But 
JKR puts Lupin in that role.  So when Harry starts teaching himself 
in OotP, it's Lupin who buys him some helpful books.  And it's Lupin 
that we the readers get some background on, and it's Lupin that we 
spend time talking about.

> >>zgirnius:
> However, I really didn't find the gender of most of the teachers    
> that important. Lupin had to be a guy as he's James' old friend,    
> Barty Jr. had to be because of the father/son thing with Crouch     
> Sr., but Quirrell and Lockhart, as far as I can see, could have    
> served their functions equally well had they been female. I don't   
> think making them so would have been seen as a feminist statement, 
> though <bg>.

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I think it was important that Lockhart was male.  Drives 
even more home to Harry how *not* to be.  A female Lockhart would 
have been written off more, I think.  And again, the teacher of the 
year with the biggest impact to Harry and the story tends to be a 
guy.  And never is that teacher, McGonagall.

At this point I'm not even sure there *should* be a strong female 
influence in the story.  Harry is a boy trying to become a man and 
there are several father figures helping him along the way, for good 
or for ill. (Generally, I think, for ill.  Even the good ones are 
flawed in some way.  Which makes for a better story, IMO, because it 
forces Harry to figure out his own way by figuring out just what 
advice or example he should follow.)

> >>zgirnius:
> (Snape's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, he definitely has a major, 
> series-wide presence aside from his centrality to the plot of HBP, 
> and is another character that needs to be male, probably because of 
> Lily, and certainly as he was a school rival of James and Co.).

Betsy Hp:
Snape is a *major* player in Harry's father-figure olympics.  I'd say 
Snape is one part of a triumvirate of the big father figures (the 
other two being Voldemort and James).  Or possibly the opposite of 
James just as Voldemort is the opposite of Dumbledore.  (Though for 
some reason that I'm not quite sure of honestly, I'm resistant to the 
idea of Dumbledore as father-figure.  Too detached, maybe?)  And so 
Snape *must* be male because Harry is male.

Maybe if the series were more romance oriented, with the healing of 
the WW rift symbolized by a marriage at the end, maybe then we could 
have a female Snape.  But then of course Draco would be female (all 
of Slytherin would need to be girls, I think) and the story would be 
very different indeed. <g>

*******
Moving right along, Hermione's Path:

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But are we (the readers) supposed to notice Hermione heading down 
> > a bad path?  Or does JKR think Hermione is doing great and       
> > nothing will change?  I don't know!  And it frustrates the heck   
> > out of me. <g>

> >>zgirnius:
> I guess to me it does not matter. Hermione has a self-righteous 
> streak which makes her sometimes ineffective (SPEW) and sometimes 
> cruel (Marietta), but it is not something I would call a fatal     
> flaw. It doesn't make her evil, in my opinion anyway. I will be     
> equally happy if she somehow comes to see the problem, or if she   
> continues this way.

Betsy Hp:
For me it *is* a fatal flaw and something that could lead Hermione to 
becoming evil, as evil as Umbridge is anyway.  So if this is how 
Hermione is supposed to be, I'll not be able to revisit the earlier 
books without seeing some ugly taint in all of Hermione's actions.  
And both Harry and Ron (gosh, especially if Ron *marries* such a 
creature!) will seem that much weaker for not recognizing the problem.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> Like many very young people, she always thinks she's right. Are you 
> concerned that she's going to go too far, to do something that     
> endangers the Trio, in Book 7?

Betsy Hp:
And Hermione physically hurts people without blinking because she's 
so sure of her rightness (something most very young people are kept 
from doing by responsible adults).  I'm actually *hopeful* that 
Hermione will do something to endanger the Trio in DH.  That way the 
elephant in the room will finally be exposed and delt with, and 
Hermione will be allowed to choose a different path.  

I do think Hermione is the Trio's weakest link because of her 
unchallenged flaw, so if a Trio issue is going to occur, I think 
it'll be because of Hermione.  But I'm just not sure such a problem 
will arise, or that JKR even sees Hermione as needing to change.

*******
And finally, the big bad, The Molly Question (long!):

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I will admit that I'm always shocked when people say Molly is 
> > strong.  She can't even keep her own child from being thrown out 
> > of her home.  What's strong about that?  

> >>zgirnius:
> Percy was not thrown out, he left, upon attaining his majority, 
> obtaining a good job, and getting into a huge fight with his       
> father. Trouble had been brewing there for quite some time, but I'm 
> not sure what Molly could have done to improve matters. 

Betsy Hp:
Been a good Mom?  Delt with the problem as and when it came up?  
Stopped encouraging her children to look at their father's job (and 
therefore their father) as a massive joke?  Talked with Arthur about 
his new principles and either come to grips with them or come to some 
sort of compromise that the two of them could present to their 
children together instead of deriding and undermining everything 
Arthur held dear?  Not raised her children to believe popularity and 
money are the two marks of success?

Percy is (hopefully was) Molly's perfect child.  He became (or tried 
to become) the sort of person Molly held up as her ideal.  That that 
type of person would clash with Arthur was a given, as Molly and 
Arthur have two very different views on what is important in life.  
Percy's fight with Arthur was Molly's fight with Arthur.  The fight 
neither Arthur or Molly were willing to have (and shame on them, IMO).

> >>zgirnius:
> Of course, for me the nails on the chalkboard characters par 
> excellence are the Twins, so naturally I blame them. <g> I would    
> also bet real money that in this regard, my aesthetic sensibilities 
> and Rowling's do not mesh. 

Betsy Hp:
Hee! On this we are in complete agreement.  I'm not a twin fan 
myself, and I also wonder at JKR's true feelings on them.  However, I 
don't let Molly (or Arthur for that matter) off the hook with them.  

Molly's relationship with the twins is interesting.  It's completely 
antagonistic, but there's something deeper there.  I think the twins 
and Molly relate to each other in a way none of her other sons do.  I 
think the twins are able to go beyond what Molly *says* she wants and 
see what really makes her heart beat with motherly pride.  (I often 
wonder if the twins are a lot like Molly's dead brothers.)  

So they're scrappers, totally willing to use superior force to get 
their way.  They look down at women as silly fluffy thinkers totally 
ruled by hormones because that's how Molly sees women.  And they'll 
break whatever rules they have to (moral as well as actual) to earn 
money.  Because in the end, money and money's trappings is what it's 
all about.  In thanks they will of course spend some of their riches 
on their mother, because they do love her.   

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > [Frankly, IMO, Molly is the perfect example of the worst sort of 
> > female weakness: everything for a man who's no longer all that 
> > interested; sublimating all of her rage and choked ambition into 
> > cruel and meaningless mind games with the weakest of her         
> > offspring as a stand in for the man she's losing.  That most of   
> > it is subconscious makes her even more pathetic, IMO.  But that's 
> > just me, and I fully realize that I'm pretty much alone on this. 
> > <g>]

> >>zgirnius:
> Percy being the weakest of her offspring? Or do you mean Ron? I'm 
> honestly not sure what you mean here.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, Ron, definitely.  Unlike Percy, Ron fights her.  But since he 
doesn't have the insight (or the makeup) of the twins, he doesn't 
fight her correctly, in a way she respects.  So Molly punishes Ron by 
either passively ignoring him or actively setting him up as a fool.  
The robe incident in GoF is a prime example, I think.  Ron gets 
hideous robes and homemaker Molly can't even be bothered to remove 
the copious amounts of lace?  That she was so late in getting them is 
a bit strange too.  Molly had a heads up about the ball, but she did 
nothing with that information.  And then of course she mocks Ron's 
body (when he's already expressed a poor sense of body-image by 
worrying about his appearance) by stating a naked Ron is something to 
point and laugh at.  (Ginny picks up this thread when she does 
her "virgin loser" rant against Ron in HBP.)

> >>zgirnius:
> However, I don't see Molly as doing everything for her man. She's   
> at least as focused on her kids.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but a lot of that is trying to make them worthy of their 
father.  The Howler to Ron goes on about Ron shaming Arthur at the 
Ministry.  But it's complicated by Molly's rage at Arthur sidelining 
what I presume was a sucessful career to go into his Muggle thing.  
So at the same time Molly is pushing her sons to become men like 
their father, she encourages them to see Arthur as an idiot.  So I 
guess it's more, "Become the kind of man your father *should* have 
been if he hadn't been so foolish."  But it's still all about Arthur, 
not who her children actually are.

> >>zgirnius:
> And even though she is not the breadwinner, I think she had at     
> least 50% of the influence in decision making.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Arthur has definitely handed the household over to Molly.  He 
(unfortunately) doesn't seem all that concerened or interested in 
what's going on in the house and would rather be tinkering with his 
own stuff in the shed. (Something none of his children take part in, 
which is odd too, I think, and another sign that there's a rift in 
the Weasley household.)

But Molly has no say in Arthur's career decisions.  Her strong 
dislike of his current position contrasts strongly with Arthur's love 
for it.  If it was ever discussed nothing was resolved, IMO.

> >>BetsyHP:
> <snip> And, IMO, Arthur, delt the best with the Dursleys and may   
> have been the only one to actually shame them (until the twins of   
> course, Molly's little helpers).

> >>Carol:
> I don't understand what you're getting at here. You approve of     
> Arthur for shaming the Dursleys (for not saying good-bye to Harry, 
> right?)...

Betsy Hp:
Yes.  Especially as Arthur does it so organically without rage or pre-
judgment.  His own politeness coupled with his very real bewilderment 
at their rudeness does more to draw attention to the Dursley's bad 
behavior, IMO, than all the magical threatening and screaming in the 
world could have done.

> >>Carol:
> ...but I thought you *dis*approved of the Twins, who pranked Dudley 
> to punish him for being a bullying git because it's wrong to       
> torture a helpless Muggle.

Betsy Hp:
I do.  By pranking Dudley the twins undo everything Arthur has done, 
push him off the moral high ground, and leave the Durleys comfortably 
safe in their assumption that all wizards are cruel, dangerous, *odd* 
creatures that need to be forcibly rejected from their lives.  Even 
if one of those wizards is family.

IOWs, Arthur was making a really good point and the twins shut him 
down.  Kind of like Molly does (or tries to do, anyway).

> >>Carol:
> (Here, it sounds as if you approve of them.)

Betsy Hp:
Sorry, I thought associating them with Molly would be enough. (Plus 
they were in the paranthasis of negativity that I had going in that 
particular paragraph.)  But yeah, now I can see how it reads 
awkwardly.  (Why didn't I spot that *yesterday*? <g>)

> >>Carol:
> But how are the Twins "Molly's little helpers"? 

Betsy Hp:
By shutting Arthur down, the twins assist their mother (unconsciously 
of course).  I think the twins also help out their mom by beating 
down the sons that are most linked to Arthur (Percy and Ron) and I 
think this goes back to the twins and Molly having an oddly symbiotic 
relationship.

> >>Carol:
> Why do you think that Molly would approve of Muggle-baiting (or    
> whatever we call it when the "baited" Muggle is punished for being 
> himself rather than for being a Muggle)? Arthur reproves them but   
> tries to protect them from Molly, who, IIRC, is extremely angry at 
> them for what they've done. She also doesn't approve of their      
> working on Ton-Tongue Toffees for six months rather than studying   
> for their OWLs.

Betsy Hp:
Molly is not upset about the muggle-baiting, she's upset about the 
Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes.  So the twins (and the trio) merrily move 
along thinking it's perfectly okay to attack those weaker than you 
because Arthur forfeits the field to Molly's rather silly point.  
Arthur is weak and Molly is stupid.  Neither are very good parents 
because of that.  

> >>Carol, who doesn't care whether the female characters            
> are "strong" or not but would like to see them analyzed a little    
> more objectively

Betsy Hp:
It's near impossible for me to analize Molly objectively.  So I just 
try and make sure everyone knows I'm not all that objective.  I *do* 
think Molly is supposed to come more from the Mrs. Bennet (of Pride 
and Prejudice) side of homemaking than the Susan Sowerby (of The 
Secret Garden) side.  Objectively, anyway. <g>

Betsy Hp