"R" has a lot of good stuff to say about my last post

I recently had the good fortune to receive a number of comments on my last post, "Rowling and the art of the family", by a reader who identified him or herself only as "R".

I seem to have struck a nerve with R in some of the things I said in that post and R's response is fantastic. This is a person who really knows the Harry Potter books well and obviously loves them. Since the comments R created were broken into five parts (Blogspot limits how long each comment can be), I have taken the liberty of copying them all into a single entry into the blog itself.

I have also taken the liberty of replacing a couple of swear words with "[*]" since young people read this blog and I have deleted the half sentences at the end of some paragraphs that got cut off by the comment function. Other than that, what follows are R's words. Thanks, R, for taking the time to read and to respond. You might not always agree with me but I'm glad you're willing to explain to me where you feel I've gone wrong. I hope you will find stuff in other entries on this blog that you find more acceptable (or that prompt more fantastic responses).

That being said, here is R's response to my blog entry:

What I think? I think that this post is pretty stupid. No offense but what are you trying to say? That J.K. Rowling is a horrible family hater? First thing first, only because you write about something doesn't mean you think about it the same way. But since you didn't get the point during any of the seven books: HP is very pro family. James died so save Lily and Harry. Lily died so save her son. Sirius died to save Harry. Molly and Arthur would have died for their children and for Harry and Molly's biggest fear was to lose them. What says more about love and family than "I'd die for my family."

Just because some characters aren't in a relationship or have children doesn't mean they don't worship families or don't know how to love. But it's also one of the greatest things about Harry Potter and the difference between HP and Twilight. “Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity."

           

But to the next part of your text: "Think about that: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Hagrid, Lupin, Lockhart, Flitwick, Trelawny, Moody, Slughorn, Quirrell, Pomfrey, even Umbridge... They're in live-in positions and yet not one of them is shown with a spouse and not one of them mentions a spouse. Sure, Lupin eventually marries Tonks but, at the time they're teaching, they are single. No matter their age."

First thing first: Dumbledore is gay. Do you really expect him to find a wife? Next thing: Snape is still in love with Lily. He would have married her some day if she required his love but she didn't. Poor Snape but that doesn't say anything about family. Quirrell traveled after his 7th year and was possessed by Voldemort ever since ... But I guess Voldemort would have been a great daddy. To Lupin: He marries Tonks so where is the problem? Oh because he wasn't married right after he left school? Excuse me, I forgot that people aren't allowed to live their own lives.

           

"And then ask yourself the question: how many of the families in the Harry Potter series have more than one child?" More than you named. You forgot Fleur for example. Also you forgot the "Next generation". Harry has three kids. Ron and Hermoine have two kids. George has two children. But to the characters without siblings:

Harry: I'm sure his parents would have been were happy to have more than one kid. A shame they [*] died when their first born was a year old.

Neville: I'm sure his parents would have been were happy to have more than one kid. A shame they [*] went insane when their first born was a year old.

Voldemort: I don't know if his mother would have wanted another child after the heartbreak with Tom Riddle Sr but we will never know because she died during [*] childbirth.

Luna: I'm sure her parents would have loved another child. To bad her mother died when Luna was still a kid.

Hagrid: Nope, Hagrid DOES have a brother. Only a halfsibling but still.

"Of the five main child characters in the novels (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville and Voldemort), three are parentless, one abandons her parents to join the magical world and the fifth is Ron of the massive family." There are reasons for three of them being parentless and this reason is not Rowling’s hate towards families. Hermoine also didn't abandon her parents to join the magical world, you [*] idiot. The deleted their memories of her so they wouldn't get killed during Voldemort War II. It was said from the very beginning of their journey in book seven that as soon as Voldemort was defeated, Hermoine would give her parents their memories back. Hermoine did this to save them and it did break her heart. And "Ron's massive family"? There is no way to please you, is there? Either there aren't enough kids or there are too many. And again: The book isn't supposed to be lovey-dovey no-one dies everybody's happy and has a perfect family with 2.5 children.

PS: "Your comment will be visible after approval." There is no way in hell you're going to approve of my comment, is there? So I really wasted one hour of my life. Yippie-Ya-Yeah.

J.K. and the art of the family

I'm on a bit of a break from Harry Potter, to be honest. Not for lack of interest, just too many other projects and priorities getting in the way.

I can't say I'm lamenting having to leave HP on the shelf for a while: it should mean that, when I finally come back to him, I'll be coming to him fresh again.

Of course, the simple fact that I'm not reading Harry right now doesn't mean I'm not thinking about Rowling's world. I have... and I've been having some interesting thoughts.

For example, I've been wondering about J.K. Rowling's relationship to families and her representation of family relationships in her books.

It started when I realised that, despite the fact that we meet and get to know a number of Harry's teachers pretty well in the novels, we never actually meet any of their spouses or partners. In fact, not one of the teachers we know pretty well even has a spouse or partner.

Think about that: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Hagrid, Lupin, Lockhart, Flitwick, Trelawny, Moody, Slughorn, Quirrell, Pomfrey, even Umbridge... they're in live-in positions and yet not one of them is shown with a spouse and not one of them mentions a spouse. Sure, Lupin eventually marries Tonks but, at the time they're teaching, they are single. No matter their age.

So what does that say about Rowling and her thoughts about family and longterm relationships?

Now let's count how many actual couples exist in the books. Yes, we have the Weasleys. And the Durlseys, the Malfoys, the Lestranges, the Grangers, the Longbottoms, and the Potters. Who else? Ted Tonks and his wife. Lupin and Tonks.

How many lead normal lives to natural deaths?

The Potters were killed as a young couple. The Longbottoms were tortured into insanity also as a young couple. Lupin and Tonks die just after having their first child.

And then ask yourself the question: how many of the families in the Harry Potter series have more than one child?

The characters who have no siblings include: Harry, Dudley, Hermione, Neville, Voldemort, Draco, Hagrid, Luna. The only multi-children family we see are the Weasleys, the Blacks, the Dumbledores, the Creeveys and the Patil twins. Oh, and Lily and Petunia.

Do you not think of this as strange? Do you not wonder about Rowling and her attitudes toward families based on this incredible under-representation of even moderately normal families in her books?

The average family in the magical world of Harry Potter is a single parent, single child family. Of the five main child characters in the novels (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville and Voldemort), three are parentless, one abandons her parents to join the magical world and the fifth is Ron of the massive family.

I don't really know what this all says about J.K. but I just find it strange. And telling. What do you think?

Harry Potter and the "broken" family

Harry Potter lives with his aunt and uncle (just like Luke Skywalker, by the way, but that's another issue).

Neville Longbottom lives with his grandmother.

Albus and Aberforth Dumbledore's father died in prison when they were in their early teens and their mother died in an accident just a couple of years later.

Rubeus Hagrid was raised from a child by his father after his mother left them. His father then died while he was still young.

Sirius Black ran away from home at 16 to live with the Potters.

Tom Riddle was raised in an orphanage, his mother dead and his father having rejected him.

There sure are a lot of boys in J.K. Rowling's world with non-traditional family structures, aren't there?

What does that fact say about the author and her experience with, and understanding of, family? And what does it say about the four major characters who have been raised in what is often called a "traditional" family: Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger, Dudley Dursley and Draco Malfoy?

To her credit, Rowling doesn't seem to associate a "broken" home with the development of an evil or damaged character. In fact, only Riddle went astray among the boys from the non-traditional families. The others are all on the side of good.

And, also to her credit, Rowling doesn't simply assume that a strong "traditional" family background guarantees the child will turn out to be good: while Ron and Hermione certainly turned out okay, Draco Malfoy and Dudley Dursley are both rather nasty creatures, at least until they redeem themselves, at least partially, in the seventh book.

Also of interest to me is the fact that, aside from the Weasleys and the Dumbledores, every family we see in the Potter novels has only one or two children. Harry is the only child of James and Lily. Neville is his parents' only offspring. Hermione, Hagrid, Tom Riddle and Draco are "only" children too. Sirius has a brother but left him when he moved to live with the Potters. And Dudley is an only child, but for the presence of his cousin, Harry, in his home.

And it's interesting that J.K. seems to present the Weasleys (the one really "big" family) as the ideal family: close, loving, supportive. Percy's decision to abandon his family is shocking and it seems almost inevitable, in the context of these books, that he will be reconciled with them before the end. And he is.

What does this mean? I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it. But it's interesting. And it's something I'll be thinking (and writing) about more in the future. Add it to the list.