Lucius as a father figure?

Sun Nov 4 20:48:31 UTC 2007

No: HPFGUIDX 178825

I consider Lucius to be a very interesting character in the series.  Now I know some of you don't consider JKR interviews to be canon, but I suspect many of you are aware that she said she decided not to kill Mr. Weasley in OoP because she wanted to leave one strong father figure for Harry.  

Thats all fine and good, but do you think Lucius is ultimately seen as a good father figure?  Obviously he is not a father figure to Harry, but he does show some paternal tendencies.  In GoF Draco says that Lucius wanted to send him to Durmstrang, but his mother couldn't bear to have him so far away (some very nice foreshadowing of HBP and DH) from her.  In this he shows that he both 1) cares for his son and wants what he sees as the best possible education for him, and 2) is compassionate enough to consider his wife's feelings and make concessions for her (I am wildly assuming that he is the traditional patriarch in his family because he is a DE and Narcissa is not, even though canon suggests that he listens to her and considers her opinion, such as when LV orders him to give over his wand, which he does not do until Narcissa tells him to).  

The fact that he married someone as lovingly devoted to her son as Narcissa, and the fact that I felt there was the suggestion that he acts as a surrogate father figure to Snape in his Hogwarts days indicates to me that Lucius is a strong father figure.

To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:05:31 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portrayal of MoM in the series

            > Ceridwen:

> Yes, it is wrong that Arthur writes a law to benefit himself at 

the 

> expense of the spirit or intent of said law.  It doesn't hurt 

anyone 

> physically, but it hurts the society.  Society functions on laws 

and 

> government, to one extent or another.  Even if the "law" is a 

> collection of etiquette, even if the "government" is a parent.  

Alla:

Isn't this pretty much what I said in my post? You do not have to 

explain to me how and why it hurts the society, really. I am aware 

of it. But read along.

Ceridwen:

When 

> laws are written to benefit a few - in this case, Arthur and 

> presumably others who want to play with Muggle cars - that means 

they 

> are placed above the rest of society.  Society becomes unequal.

> 

> That is the corruption of power.  Arthur doesn't mean to add to 

the 

> imbalance, he's just going along with the way everyone sees the 

> society.  If you work for the Ministry, you put in long days, but 

you 

> get certain perks, such as the law turning a blind eye to your 

> hobbies.  Someone gives you tickets to a Quidditch match.  I get 

the 

> impression this is not seen as something wrong in this society.  

> People accept it because that's the way it's always been.  The 

haves, 

> or those who work at the Ministry, are on a different level than 

> everyone else.  They are "more equal".

> 

> If Arthur can do it and get away with it, someone else can do the 

> same thing that actually will hurt someone. 

Alla:

Well, first and foremost let's look at the legislative intent of 

this law, shall we? He wrote the law to **protect the muggles** 

first and foremost, din't he?

He left a **loophole** in it to be able to play with the muggle car. 

I would say that the general reason of the law should count more 

than the reason for the loophole. But that's just me.

You do not get an argument from me that this is wrong in any event 

and corruption of power. But let's put it this way, I consider the 

kind of corruption of power that is shown here to be the **least** 

harmful of all others that I see from Ministry officials.

Arthur wanted to play with the car. So he left a loophole. Yeah, bad 

Arthur, as I said good people get sucked in the atmopshere of 

corrupted society too and to some extend may become corrupted as 

well.

Arthur on the other hand tried to protect Muggles contrary to some 

of his colleagues. He is NOT in Lucius' Malfoy pocket as for example 

Committee Disposing of the dangerous creatures. He is not concerned 

with the purity of blood as Cornelius Fudge is. Arthur does not have 

dark magic artifacts in his home and participates in dangerous raids 

to take them from dark wizards, what if Mundungus was more succesful 

with cursing him in CoS?

So, yeah, Arthur wanted to play with Muggle car and he left a 

loophole in the law to benefit himself. Wrong he was. I just cannot 

look at his misgivings without comparing the ones from his 

colleagues and then this one shrinks in my eyes. No, not becomes 

invisible, but shrinks.

Ceridwen:

 Katie mentioned that 

> former DEs probably went for jobs in the Ministry after LV's first 

> fall because that's where the power was (and is).  That makes a 

lot 

> of sense to me.  There were thirteen years between the first fall 

and 

> Voldy's reconstitution.

Alla:

Sure, hence witness Lucius Malfoy making friends in the ministry so 

easily, makes sense to me as well.

Ceridwen:

>Some of these guys were probably in cushy 

> positions by the time he returned.  If Arthur's writing laws to 

> benefit him, I can imagine the once and former DEs are doing the 

> same.  Their beneficial laws will hurt others.  Look at Dolores 

> Umbridge's laws, and her edicts at Hogwarts, and she isn't a DE.  

Alla:

Laws? As in plural? What other law did Arthur wrote to benefit 

himself? And even that one, as I said before  I think he was 

concerned with the protection of Muggles more than benefitting 

himself, but sure that was one of the purposes.

I am sure former DE could have written plenty laws to benefit them, 

I just do not see how it is connected to Arthur's law. 

Oh, yes, Umbridge. Good example that is. I do not see Arthur's 

writing the law that would stop werewolves from getting work for 

example.

> Alla:

> > Of course Arthur does not get to be a personal guest of 

> > Minister of magic, he is stuck in the job with low pay 

> > for years...

> 

> Ceridwen:

> Arthur is head of a department.  His pay isn't low, his expenses 

are 

> high.  The Weasleys have seven children to put through school.  

<SNIP>

Alla:

Not that I dispute that his expenses are high, but where did you get 

that his pay is not low. Isn't his department considered the least 

prestigious and didn't he just got promoted in HBP?

Katie: 

Lucius is a big facor in the fall of the ministry I think. Yes he is 

in

Azkaban by the time the MoM falls, but as your post points out he 

gained a lot

of strong friends and influence while LV was "out." This made the 

MoM easy

pickings because it was essentially already infiltrated from the 

moment LV came

back, while before it seems that most people were being recruited 

into the DEs

straight from Hogwarts w/o ever working at the MoM or anywhere else.

Alla:

When I was looking through the books to put this post together, one 

of the things I was doing was keeping an eye on Lucius dear. I had 

read several times on list that after CoS Lucius' power just 

basically non existant. Well, what I saw  does not support that idea.

Despite being kicked out of the Board of Governors, I see Lucius' 

star being steadily on the rise among the ministry. Committee of 

disposal of dangerous creatures? Of course we will do what you say, 

Mr. Malfoy.

Being buddies with Minister of Magic? Of course as long as generous 

contributions are made. 

Does Fudge pay any attention to Lucius being at the Graveyard?

Of course not, how could dear Lucius still be murderer and torturer?

It is much more convenient to decide that Harry is crasy rather than 

think that person who makes such **generous contributions** is a 

criminal.

NOTHING less than Lucius participating in the raid at MoM forces 

Ministry morons to have their eyes open. Now they have no choice but 

to put Lucius to Azkaban.

JMO,

Alla

_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]