The Challenge for January 2011:
Lily revisited
Lily revisited
Years ago (we've been around for a while, oh yes!)we had 'Severus and Lily' as a monthly challenge.
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
alicekinsno1 suggested to take a closer look at Lily's character:Maybe something that discusses the character of Lily more deeply? I'd love to see what some of your ideas are for just how Lily went from treating Snape so harshly and talking back to James, to being the stereotypical "saintly mother" at the end of her life. There's something about her personality that doesn't add up.
That is to say, how her apparently selfless decision to die for her baby makes sense in light of the way she treated Severus or even James. With possibly a side comment about how despite being so powerful and gifted she didn't really show any of that by dying pleading for her baby's life without even trying to take on Voldemort.
Please post your entries here or in a separate post. I'm looking forward to your entries.
If you have ideas for new challenges, please post them here. (This is a new list, your earlier suggestions are still in the old post).
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Author intent is what text allows, suggest and indicates. Authorial comment is irrelevant to the reader's textual experience. Authors own their intellectual property; they don't own the reader's interpretation.
"Which makes your interpretation of the text just as subjective as mine."
Mine is based on the text. You have just stated that yours isn't always.
"Are no shades of shades of grey?"
Not in HP-world, no. JK isn't much of a one for shades of grey or subtleties.
" If Severus could change from being a paid-up DE to a reformed man, then why is a different standard held for an admittedly more minor character – James?"
There is no different standard. There is merely presence or absence of textual evidence. There is plenty for Snape having reformed, and none for James; the little we have shows him unchanged. He's still hexing Snape in year 7, though he's Head Boy and clearly has other ways to control Snape's behaviour. By "returning" hexes (if we can trust his friends about it only being returning and not starting), he is abusing his authority. As an Order member, he and his friends withhold important information (Animagi status) from their leader and act as loose canons. As a parent, he lets a one-year-old ride a broomstick without removing hazards or the pet, and he sulks over his inability to sneak out from hiding.
"became a dedicated Order fighter and family man"
See above.
"If that was payback for James"
It wasn't payback It's quite explicit in canon that Snape had no idea the Potters were affected.
"Since Severus never shows any remorse in canon for James’s death"
"And you don’t think Petunia’s POV on Lily is somewhat … jaundiced?"
No more than Lupin's and Sirius's and Dumbledore's and Hagrid's, and for that matter Snape's. But the point is that we have no counterpoint to it. We are never shown any action of James's that is praiseworthy, unless you count the supposed rescue. I don't however, because when Lupin's account is weighed against Snape's, I find the latter fits the circumstances better. I can't understand how James could trust his family's safety to someone who had wilfully betrayed Lupin's to an enemy, nor how Lupin can be so blase about it as to call Snape's reaction "a schoolboy grudge". But if the whole thing was a group set-up to remove the only person likely to catch them in criminal behaviour it all makes sense.
"The real threat of sexual assault happens after Lily walks away"
Any forcible disrobing of another is a sexual assault, and doing it in public increases the severity of the offence.
"the reason she isn’t is that Severus called her a racial insult, which is no small potatoes."
That would be sufficient reason for her to leave. OTOH, her actions previous to this insult show that she had already stopped being his friend, she just hadn't admitted it, and therefore the insult functioned as an excuse for her to take action she intended anyway.
"Negligent? How? You mean because she was letting a one year old Harry zoom about on a broomstick and she made a humorous remark about him nearly killing the cat?"
Yes. Exactly that. I have almost as many kids as the Weasleys and my ethnic community tends to even larger families, so believe me when I tell you that even the most agile one-year-old shouldn't be rinding a broom. I don't find child negligence funny, and I'm sorry that you apparently do.
"Severus also went along with the plan for Harry to die."
Unwillingly, and because he had no better options. He certainly didn't *encourage* as shade-Lily did. What else could he realistically have done? *Tell* Harry - Harry would still follow Dumbledore. (he'd been "groomed" to do so.) Kidnap Harry? Obliviate him?
"only has doubts about Dumbledore (which he then resolves)"
Of course he resolves them. Dumbledore has groomed him just as pedophiles do their victims.
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Of course they don't, and you don't own my interpretation either.
Mine is based on the text. You have just stated that yours isn't always.
I said no such thing. I said I interpreted the text using a Doyalist perspective.
Not in HP-world, no. JK isn't much of a one for shades of grey or subtleties.
And yet she created Severus Snape! Who is the ultimate in shades of grey, which is one of the reasons I love him. So the woman clearly has SOME writing ability. *snort*
There is no different standard. There is merely presence or absence of textual evidence. There is plenty for Snape having reformed, and none for James; the little we have shows him unchanged.
I'm not buying that. Last we see of James, he is an ardent young father desperately trying to save his wife and son. He is no longer Head Boy at Hogwarts but you seem determined to see him frozen forever in time as a schoolboy. This is NOT what the text shows you.
As an Order member, he and his friends withhold important information (Animagi status) from their leader and act as loose canons.
That I own. James is reckless. Heck, I don't even like James much. It is very ironic, therefore, that your extreme dislike of this character puts me in a position where I end up DEFENDING him. The irony is delicious. (As a Snape fan, I'm all about the irony!)
As a parent, he lets a one-year-old ride a broomstick without removing hazards or the pet,
I can't believe you're serious about this. Harry is a magical child with magical abilities ... comparing this to a RL situation is, I'm sorry, hilarious. You might as well complain that CS Lewis was irresponsible for allowing his pre-pubescent schoolchildren to fight real battles in Narnia!
and he sulks over his inability to sneak out from hiding.
The guy is in hiding because the world's number one psychopath just put out a death warrant on him and his family. I know I would suffer from cabin fever in the same situation.
Yes. Exactly that. I have almost as many kids as the Weasleys and my ethnic community tends to even larger families, so believe me when I tell you that even the most agile one-year-old shouldn't be rinding a broom.
It's FICTION. Rowling is a mother too. Next thing you'll be telling me is that she isn't fit to look after children!
I don't find child negligence funny, and I'm sorry that you apparently do.
Cheap, silly shot. Don't be so ridiculous, and don't put words in my mouth.
Of course he resolves them. Dumbledore has groomed him just as pedophiles do their victims.
Ugh. Thanks for that ugly mental image. You know, I don't like Dumbledore much either, but that's a really offensive analogy. You falsely accused me of not caring about child negligence. I'm calling YOU out on using a highly inappropriate analogy and therefore trivialising and cheapening the horrible issue of child sex abuse.
It really is a waste of time here trying to discuss Lily's character in a more positive light, isn't it? Dissenting opinions are not allowed.
-- Pearlette
Re: Pearlette to Duj
RE Lily: I think part of the difficulty that can crop up here sometimes (RE Lily and also many other things) is that in the books JKR veers back and forth between a cartoonish tone (especially in the early books, but also a bit in the later ones) and a gritty 'realist' tone. So what works within a certain tone becomes jarring within the context of the work as a whole to some readers. The letter might be one of these instances. Also, I could sort of see it being one of those things that you laugh a little about after the fact, but during the fact is certainly worrisome. I don't think it was the *best* parenting attitude, but it's not exactly Dursley-level negligence either. It's the attitude of young inexperienced parents who are sincere in their love but who IMHO still haven't got the responsibility aspect down perfectly.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
RE James: yes, he seems to have been a devoted father and husband from what little we see. That however has nothing to do with whether he reformed regarding the questionable behavior we do see from him, which is oriented mainly towards other characters, not those in his family. A person can be a wonderful loving family man and a sadistic camp guard (for example, not saying James is that) at the same time: they are different contexts, with different people, and the person's behavior in one situation does not relate in a redemptive/nonredemptive way or predict hir behavior in the other. The family love can be quite genuine when the sadism towards the prisoners is also real, and the one does not excuse or cancel out the other. Take Lucius for instance. Although he definitely has questionable attitudes and does bad things, he seems to clearly love Draco and want the best for him. Teaching him those questionable attitudes, from our perspective, may look like bad parenting, but from his understanding of the world he's trying to help Draco be successful. He's wrong in his attitude, not uncaring as a parent. But his love for Draco has no relation to whether or not he is redeemed regarding the question of having joined Voldie.
James is not mainly talked about as 'reformed' or not regarding moving from being a bad parent to a good one; the question of whether he's reformed has to do with how he treats specific people he does not like and certain problematic attitudes that he has. Snape is the central example here, and we never see anything to indicate that his behavior or attitude towards Snape changed. His regard for Lily and Harry has nothing to do with it. So yes, he's decent *within that situation,* I agree. But that does not weigh as evidence that he changed at all regarding the flaws we see him display with Snape.
Regarding his 'cabin fever:' yes, it's natural to feel that way. But what differentiates the mature from the immature is the attitude one takes towards it and how one handles the situation. A mature person, understanding the risk, would say to themselves 'This is really getting to me, but given the consequences I had better just deal with it the best I can, it won't last forever. My wife and son are in danger, not just me; I can't do anything that might jeopardize them even if I hate it here.' And would just deal with it. Not complain about it and sulk, not keep saying they wish they could sneak out and be reckless again. If they discussed how they felt with their family, it would be more along the lines of 'you know, I really hate being cooped up like this, but I understand why we've got to do it. It won't be forever. I'll do the best I can to handle it.' Given that we never see such an attitude expressed by James regarding everything else, there's not much evidence that he felt that way about hiding, and Lily's letter certainly would still fit with a reading of James as having a rather immature attitude about it all.
And yes, he's young. I know. It's understandable, but that doesn't mean he's free from criticism over it, especially since he felt old and mature enough to be able to sign up for a life-and-death struggle in which he is not the only one at risk. Taking on that sort of role brings with it expectations and responsibilities, a need to grow up because your life isn't the only one potentially on the line. If he's going to play soldier, it's only fair to expect him to make an effort to fulfill the part responsibly, which includes learning to give up immature attitudes. And IMO I don't think we ever see that from him, understandable though his situation might be. I don't think there's evidence that that notion even ever really *registered* with him. One can speculate that it did, but that is not present in the text.
Pearlette to 00sevvie
Just a bit, eh? ;)
Regarding his 'cabin fever:' yes, it's natural to feel that way. But what differentiates the mature from the immature is the attitude one takes towards it and how one handles the situation. A mature person, understanding the risk, would say to themselves 'This is really getting to me, but given the consequences I had better just deal with it the best I can, it won't last forever. My wife and son are in danger, not just me; I can't do anything that might jeopardize them even if I hate it here.' And would just deal with it. Not complain about it and sulk, not keep saying they wish they could sneak out and be reckless again. If they discussed how they felt with their family, it would be more along the lines of 'you know, I really hate being cooped up like this, but I understand why we've got to do it. It won't be forever. I'll do the best I can to handle it.' Given that we never see such an attitude expressed by James regarding everything else, there's not much evidence that he felt that way about hiding, and Lily's letter certainly would still fit with a reading of James as having a rather immature attitude about it all.
But this is projecting onto the text. All Lily’s letter says is that James is a bit unhappy about being cooped up, not that he’s ‘complaining and sulking’ and bugging her about it.
If they discussed how they felt with their family, it would be more along the lines of 'you know, I really hate being cooped up like this, but I understand why we've got to do it. It won't be forever. I'll do the best I can to handle it.'
Well, maybe James did that very thing. Except that he didn’t, nor did he do what you have suggested, i.e. moan and complain, because he isn’t real and none of this ever happened. :D
In any case … this thread is supposed to be about Lily. Back to her parenting skills:
It's the attitude of young inexperienced parents who are sincere in their love but who IMHO still haven't got the responsibility aspect down perfectly.
Or maybe they’re just a couple of young wizards who know very well that a wizarding baby won’t come to any harm if he’s whizzing about on his baby broomstick. It’s not exactly analogous to a real-life situation.
And maybe Lily’s comment about little Harry nearly killing the cat is a joke and not to be taken so literally. That’s how I read it, certainly.
-- Pearlette
Re: Pearlette to 00sevvie
It's true it only says James was unhappy and 'tried not to show it,' yes - but the immediate next line is that Dumbledore has the cloak, "so no chance of a little excursion." Which suggests that his unhappiness is directly tied to the fact that he can't go out and run wild has he has done before whenever he used the cloak. His behavior in the Prologue also fits with this reading far more than with a reading that he offscreen smartened up about it during the short time all this was going on. It's speculation, but the text provides clear evidence of one personality for him and nothing directly supporting any change of heart, so Occam's razor would dictate that he's probably still the somewhat immature person we've seen all along when Lily was writing her letter. But itself, yes, it doesn't prove he was, you are right there. It simply fails to provide any evidence to the contrary, and the text provides such evidence nowhere else.
RE Harry and the broom: I'm with annoni-no here. Just because they have magic doesn't mean the child is immune from harm. It just means it's quicker to fix a broken bone - that's still harm to the child whether it takes ten minutes or several weeks to heal. Also, a vase falling on his head could kill him instantly, and no magic would fix that. Even if the cat thing is a joke, it's still irresponsible. But again, I think JKR's tone shifts might be part of the problem here.
Re: Pearlette to 00sevvie
But an equally likely reading of Lily's simple statement in that letter is that James wished he could get out of the house so he could fight on behalf of his wife and kid, do Order stuff. Obviously the right thing was for him to stay put, but he could hardly help feeling anxious and twitchy about it.
But again, I think JKR's tone shifts might be part of the problem here.
Well, OK. I'm not bothered by tone shifts in a book which sometimes has humour in order to lighten the darkness. But I, personally, don't see it as a problem. This is a fantasy setting, so I'm not inclined to disapprove of a magical mother who allows her magical baby to fly around on his broomstick.
-- Pearlette
Re: Pearlette to 00sevvie
I wouldn't have a problem with the tone if using humor to lighten a situation was all she did. But to me and to others that I know the tone shifts are too great and simply do not work. It is as if she was trying to write in two different genres at the same time. Laughing at someone unpleasant who had been traumatized by a wild animal, for example, would work in a cartoonish genre (we do it all the time with Looney Tunes and the like); it's part of the genre and isn't meant to be read in terms of real-world morality. In a realistic genre, that same laughter would indicate a severely-empathy deprived or morally callous character. Thus a lot of the argument that goes on about Snape and the 'Prank' or the Trio laughing at Umbridge; one group is reading it more cartoonishly than another group, and both are right/wrong because the text itself can't seem to decide if the violence is in fact cartoonish or realistic.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
I can understand complaining (maybe not to Lily), but sneaking off is crazy. And obviously, it could be argued that one could lead to/encourage the other.
-Leah
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Pearlette- I can't believe you're serious about this. Harry is a magical child with magical abilities ... comparing this to a RL situation is, I'm sorry, hilarious. You might as well complain that CS Lewis was irresponsible for allowing his pre-pubescent schoolchildren to fight real battles in Narnia!
I think Duj's concern here is that even though magical children are shown to be more resilient than muggle children, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are invincible. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary, given that Harry at 12 was able to break his arm from a simple fall (from a great height, yes, but there was no magic inflicting the actual injury and his own magic did not prevent it). Falling in general is treated is a major concern when it comes to brooms, and is why Hogwarts students (who are at least 11) are only supposed to do it while supervised. Given these facts, allowing a one year old to careen around the house uncontrollably does seem grossly negligent.
The only possible countervailing evidence might be Neville's bouncing after being dropped out a window. However, this doesn't actually hold up under scrutiny. Neville's uncle was trying to *scare* the magic out of him, and only let go on accident. It was the *emotional response* that mattered in triggering a child's magic, not the actual danger.
So, if we apply that to little Harry having a great time riding his little broom, accidentally hitting a stand hard enough to tip over a heavy vase directly onto his head, without him ever noticing the vase was there... can we really be sure his magic would have saved him?
As regards your C.S. Lewis reference, the situations were entirely different. The Pevensies were only in Narnia because of a prophecy, and no one *forced* them to fight - they chose to do so because it was the right thing to do. There were no such circumstances here- the prophecy regarding Voldemort and 'the chosen one' hadn't been set in motion, and would never have been set in motion if Voldie hadn't attacked Harry in the first place. Further, Harry was in no way capable to make decisions about what was safe and what wasn't - that's a parent's responsibility, and one that James apparently did not work diligently to fulfill.
annoni-no
Re: Pearlette to Duj
We'll have to agree to disagree. It honestly strikes me as an absurd conclusion. A lot of crazy things happen in Potterworld, like Minerva giving Draco and Harry detention in the Forbidden Forest in Book 1. That's a world of daftness, right there in the text, but since it's a fantasy book for kids, I'm not losing sleep over it.
So, if we apply that to little Harry having a great time riding his little broom, accidentally hitting a stand hard enough to tip over a heavy vase directly onto his head, without him ever noticing the vase was there... can we really be sure his magic would have saved him?
Since none of this actually happened in canon, and as Duj is a stickler for sticking to the text ...
To me this is on the samel level as an argument I've seen from Snape-bashers, i.e. that Snape COULD have hurt James badly during SWM when he threw a hex at him, cutting his cheek. To which I say: 'pull the other one'. James obviously ISN'T badly hurt during SWM, so it's a complete non-issue.
So is this. IMVHO.
As regards your C.S. Lewis reference, the situations were entirely different. The Pevensies were only in Narnia because of a prophecy, and no one *forced* them to fight - they chose to do so because it was the right thing to do.
You're missing my point, which is that Lewis puts his children in dangerous situations because that's the kind of thing that happens in a fantasy story.
Likewise, I don't read Harry Potter for its gritty realism. So no, I don't feel inclined to tut-tut at a wizarding mum who allows her wizarding baby to fly around on his broomstick. :)
-- Pearlette
ignoring text
Nonsense. The Snape-bashers are ignoring the text, which clearly states that "Snape had directed his wand straight at James." Any injury that was subsequently produced was what Snape intended to produce: a slight temporary gash that did not continue bleeding after the first spatter.
Whereas there are plenty of occasions that we see wizard-children get hurt. If falls were not a problem then PS wouldn't have had "The whole crowd were on their feet, watching, terrified, as the Weasleys flew up to try and pull Harry safely on to one of their brooms" - what's to be terrified about if magic will protect him from the fall? - nor would PoA have had:
'He was falling...
"Lucky the ground was so soft."
"I thought he was dead for sure."
... He didn't have a clue where he was, or how he'd got there, or what he'd been doing before he got there...
..."You fell off..."
"We thought you'd died."
And note that this is *after* Dumbledore "waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground."
Falls are dangerous for wizard children? Pure canon.
" I don't read Harry Potter for its gritty realism. So no, I don't feel inclined to tut-tut at a wizarding mum who allows her wizarding baby to fly around on his broomstick."
Characters have to be judged through the prism of the canon-verse. HP-canon is that falls can be dangerous for wizard-children and their magic cannot be relied on always to protect them from injury. Therefore Lily is an irresponsible parent.
Is she more irresponsible than the generality of wizarding parents? We don't have enough evidence to be sure. They're an irresponsible lot, but we don't see any other one-year-olds on brooms. (We do see two toddlers on child-brooms in GoF, but they're two or three years old, not one.)
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Actually, the broken arm was from the Bludger hitting Harry's elbow. Harry managed to land safely -- despite having one broken arm and one hand holding the Snitch, and "trying not to pass out." I'm not sure how he managed to hold onto his broom!
I'm not sure how that fits into the argument. There was still no magic causing or preventing the injury, but... (shrug)
On the other hand, there's the Quidditch game in PoA interrupted by the Dementors, where the Dementors cause Harry to black out and fall off his broom:
“Lucky the ground was so soft.”
“I thought he was dead for sure.”
[...]
“Harry!” said Fred, who looked extremely white underneath, the mud. “How’re you feeling?” [...] “You fell off,” said Fred. “Must’ve been — what — fifty feet?”
“We thought you’d died,” said Alicia, who was shaking.
Hermione made a small, squeaky noise. Her eyes were extremely bloodshot. [...] “Dumbledore was really angry,” Hermione said in a quaking voice. “I’ve never seen him like that before. He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground.
Wizards may bounce under some circumstances, as Neville did, but clearly no one at that Quidditch game was counting on Harry doing so.
The situation on the toy broom was different because the broom wasn't so dangerously high, but a one-year-old is so much more fragile... I think it's like 00sevvie said: "part of the difficulty that can crop up here sometimes (RE Lily and also many other things) is that in the books JKR veers back and forth between a cartoonish tone (especially in the early books, but also a bit in the later ones) and a gritty 'realist' tone."
Another part of the problem is that while we take the cartoonish seriously when it comes to the Dursleys' behavior, when it comes to this case with Lily, not everyone does. I don't know if we *should* take this case with Lily seriously, but I'm not quite comfortable with being inconsistent on this point, either.
Lynn
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Which is not to say that that doesn't occasionally happen anyway; I think maybe we are all prone to it a little bit, given the messiness of the text. I have to watch myself there too. But one can at least try to be consistent...but then things start to look really icky sometimes. Arg.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
When my niece was a baby we had a baby walker for her, she used to back up against a wall and then take off on a run across the room. She never hurt herself, she was watched at all times, and she used to miss the dog by inches. She was also walking by her first birthday. This is not the real world, it is a fantasy and the normal rules are suspended. If you are applying real life rules to this world, your are on a hiding to nothing
Re: Pearlette to Duj
And just because culturally it seems normal for parents in the WW to be more blase about their children's safety doesn't mean that nobody can find fault with that attitude. (Though again, I think here JKR's tone shifts cause problems for some readers.)
Re: Pearlette to Duj
There is a tone shift in the books. In each book the tone gets darker as the protagonists grow up and the situation worsens. Harry's problems shift from winning a Quidditch match to sacrificing his life to save his world. I think we have to have the flexibility to shift with the books.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Like any nurse in any casualty centre. It *is* all in a day's work for them. But some of the patients die, and *that's* part of their day's work too.
"the kids at the Quidditch World cup flying around on their toy brooms."
They were a bit older, probably two or three. They're described as "barely older than" the "tiny boy no older than two" who'd pinched his dad's wand.
"When my niece was a baby we had a baby walker for her, she used to back up against a wall and then take off on a run across the room. She never hurt herself, she was watched at all times, and she used to miss the dog by inches. She was also walking by her first birthday."
You were lucky.
Canada has banned baby-walkers and Australia is moving towards that. Their government advisory site (ACCC) states "Baby walkers can be dangerous as they allow infants
to move more quickly around the house and grab things
normally out of their reach. Their new mobility and added
height can place your child in dangerous situations with
access to bench tops and the potential to pull boiling
kettles or irons down onto themselves, fall down stairs or
reach open fi res or heaters. A baby in a walker can also tip
over on uneven surfaces ... Child safety experts recommend a
stationary play centre as a safer alternative."
I've known plenty of babies that could walk by their first birthday. One of mine was walking at eight months. But a responsible parent removes hazards *before* a baby is tall/mobile enough to reach them. Clearly Lily did *not* do so.
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
We did not worry about stairs as the home was on one floor. It is wise to child proof a home but sometimes somethings get overlooked.
As you say you have a child who was walking by the time he/she was 8 months old perhaps that child rode on a rocking horse or a tricycle. Young children do like riding toys. I am aware that children have accidents. We simply cannot childproof every single aspect of their young lives and wrap them up in cotton wool. For one thing such treatment is not good for the child. And of course sometimes tragedies happen. But not it seems to a lot of the WW's children. We do not hear of a single child dieing in a home accident. They seem to be very safe and this is probably due to the child being magical. with built in safety cushions. What I am trying to say is that judging this aspect of the books by our standards just doesn't work. We are not magical and neither are our children. We have to be constantly on the lookout against broken bones and bad cuts, it seems that magical parent have other worries. Such as spell damage.
*raises hand* I mean, do not like Lily personally, in the sense that she does not seem like the kind of person I would want to befriend and hang out with. "Cheeky", "vivacious" etc whatever kind of gets on my nerves - she is not in the nerd crowd, and that's surely where I was and am. But she seems like a rather normal teenage girl to me, with the personal insensitivities, convinced of being right and invulnerable, and dose of self-centeredness that normally go along with that.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Nor am I trying to.
"I said no such thing. I said I interpreted the text using a Doyalist perspective."
1) Doylist is fine for literary analysis in general, but it fails at character analysis because it destroys the coherence of character information.
2) JK's authorial fiat is not part of the text. Text is a discrete product. Authors are, to some extent, merely observers of what their subconscious produces: slightly more privileged than the rest of us, because they observed the process, but for that very reason less likely to engage fully with the end product. Their memory of what they *wanted* to put in obscures their vision of what they did put in.
"And yet she created Severus Snape!"
Whose subtleties *we* attributed to him. *Her* Snape is very black and white, just like her world. He loved Lily. He hated James. He loathed Harry for James' sake and saved him for Lily's, and never grew past that. He was in her words "deeply horrible".
"So the woman clearly has SOME writing ability."
Writing ability and shades of grey are not synonymous.
"desperately trying to save his wife and son"
Well, at least he shouts a warning. He doesn't do anything else to the purpose because he doesn't even have the sense to carry a wand at all times.
And how does this show growth on his part? Do you think he *wouldn't* have tried to save family as a schoolboy? His loyalty and bravery are the *only* ethical strengths we know of him, and they coexisted with his bullying.
"Harry is a magical child with magical abilities"
How irresponsible of his parents to suppose they can rely on that. Magical children can get injured too, and we see in canon that magic isn't able to heal *everything*. Has Harry's magic even begun to kick in at one year? (Neville's didn't until he was eight, and before it did he "nearly drowned" once.) Accidental magic rarely saves Harry in canon from being beaten up by Dudley's gang.
I can only presume you have no conception of how seriously and how quickly babies can injure themselves. (And I notice that the cat's danger is less than nothing to you.) Babies have no sense of what's dangerous. They lunge suddenly. They topple. They smash glass and play with it. They try to play with the bright pretty fire. If baby-Harry had broken his neck, could they have brought him back to life? If he'd crashed through glass and scarred his eyes, could they have restored his sight?
"Rowling is a mother too. Next thing you'll be telling me is that she isn't fit to look after children!"
Now *who* is putting words into the other person's mouth? I don't use books as a prism through which to look at the author. I engage only with the text.
"don't put words in my mouth."
You're the one who says "It's HUMOUR. Lighten up." Some things aren't funny. A lot of what the text presents as funny *really* isn't.
"I don't like Dumbledore much either, but that's a really offensive analogy."
Dumbledore is a really offensive character. Maybe you aren't offended by the spectacle of him grooming Harry to become a child soldier and willing sacrifice, with lines like "Death is the next great adventure," and points rewards for being stupidly reckless. I think it's horrific, and although there is no sexual element in Dumbledore's relationship with Harry it's just as much a predatory one as any pedophile's.
"trivialising and cheapening"
Child soldiers is just as much a horrible form of child abuse as pedophilia, and one which is just as much of a real world problem. Maybe you didn't notice because the victims of child soldiery are "third-worlders", and we safe comfortable westerners don't usually get confronted with the issue close up.
"It really is a waste of time here trying to discuss Lily's character in a more positive light, isn't it? Dissenting opinions are not allowed."
*You* certainly don't allow them. If I disagree you get abusive, and now you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to stifle debate.
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
But you ARE casting aspersions on a) the way I critique things and b) my character. Which does look rather like trying to steamroller the opposition. *shrug*
1) Doylist is fine for literary analysis in general, but it fails at character analysis because it destroys the coherence of character information.
Not in my experience it doesn’t. I think my character analysis of the characters in Rowling’s Potterverse (and Tolkien’s Middle-earth and every other book I’ve ever read) works just dandy, thanks. I don’t claim my view is superior, of course not, but I sure ain’t having it slapped down just because someone happens to disagree with it.
I can only presume you have no conception of how seriously and how quickly babies can injure themselves.
You don’t know anything about me, my life experiences or my dealings with children. Cut it out, please.
(And I notice that the cat's danger is less than nothing to you.)
Yet another ‘ad hominem’ attack. First I don’t care about child abuse, now I don’t care about animals. Knock it off.
Dumbledore is a really offensive character. Maybe you aren't offended by the spectacle of him grooming Harry to become a child soldier and willing sacrifice, with lines like "Death is the next great adventure," and points rewards for being stupidly reckless. I think it's horrific, and although there is no sexual element in Dumbledore's relationship with Harry it's just as much a predatory one as any pedophile's.
As I’ve already said, Dumbledore is not a favourite of mine. But I think we also should add Gandalf the Grey to the list of Machiavellian old gits who send unwitting innocents on a suicide mission. How about it, Duj? Let’s compile a list. ;)
Except not, because I love Gandalf, and Frodo, and that’s never going to happen.
Child soldiers is just as much a horrible form of child abuse as pedophilia, and one which is just as much of a real world problem. Maybe you didn't notice because the victims of child soldiery are "third-worlders", and we safe comfortable westerners don't usually get confronted with the issue close up.
Here we go again. More ‘ad hominem’. I’m not going to dignify this with a response.
*You* certainly don't allow them. If I disagree you get abusive, and now you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to stifle debate.
I am not saying anything of the sort. My opinion of Lily is clearly the minority one on this site. Which is fine. I'm a big girl and I'm not threatened by opposing POVs. But YOU are the one who threw the first punch by saying that my method of literary analsyis doesn’t count (because you disagree with it) and then insinuating, several times, that I don’t care about child abuse and animal cruelty. If a stranger on the internet casts such crass aspersions on my character, you bet I am going to respond robustly. (And you have the gall to call ME abusive.) Please note that I have not made any personal accusations about YOUR morals and integrity.
One of the pleasures I get from online discussions is alternative POVs that challenge the way I see a character. One of my favourite characters is Hermione, but other readers don’t like her. Are they WRONG not to like her? Of course not. Anymore than I am wrong to like Severus, Harry, Hermione … and Lily.
-- Pearlette
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Here we go again. More ‘ad hominem’. I’m not going to dignify this with a response.
Ad hominem attacks: attacks on the character or personal attributes of the writer rather than the person's argument
That is not what duj is doing above.
Also: it's clear by the end of the book series that Dumbledore was reckless with Harry's life and possibly planning for Harry to get killed all along. Harry of all people accepts this. Maybe we're meant to forgive Dumbledore or like him in spite of this, maybe this theme is just not meant to be taken seriously, but it is a part of the text, an undeniable part of it. It makes sense to take those themes and character developments into account in the course of interpreting the book. So, the comment about Dumbledore's character is relevant in the context of this discussion.