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
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
The internal evidence is that it wasn't safe. He broke a vase and "nearly killed the cat." *How* unsafe we can't judge, but hazards were not removed or shielded, and magic doesn't always protect from injury or fix it.
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
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.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
It also says nothing whatsoever about why the level of such accidents (whatever it is) is what it is; saying it's got to be low because the kids are magical is pure speculation. We do know that children don't usually manifest magic during their first year, so at that point Lily and James did not actually know for certain that Harry *was* magical, so it's a moot point anyway.
The point about safety cushions on brooms is an assumption. There is nothing denying it in the books (absence of evidence), but nothing supporting it either (no evidence either way). So you are defending a canon incident on the basis of an assumption that is allowed but not necessary and which not everyone feels comfortable making. Probably we're all going to have to agree to disagree, since we're arguing on the level of assumptions each is making instead only on textual evidence.
Re: Pearlette to Duj