"Home Away from Home" in Deathly Hallows
| "Where Your Treasure is, There Will Your Heart Be Also" In some of the comments on this post on blood imagery and Harry's turmoil in book 5 after Sirius dies and Dylan's "It's All Right Ma, I'm Only Bleeding" (which post I love refering to anyway, one of my favorites because I love that song so much) I made some comments/hints on a "homecoming structure" in book 7 (also linked to the title of the Dylan album containing that song, "Bringing It All Back Home"), and used the U2 song title "A Sort of Homecoming" because JRK2, aka Jo-2, aka Jo, and I share a love of U2 (and, Jo, since moving to NYC I have come around to a new appreciation of what I call the "prophet years" of U2, Achtung through Pop - as a friend put it analgously concerning the Old Testament: "If you're going to get anywhere you have to start with the Torah; And you have to arrive at the Wisdom Literature or you haven't gotten anywhere; But if you are going to take that human trip you have to go by way of the deconstruction of the kingdoms in the Prophets." everything up through Joshua Tree is Torah, Atomic Bomb is Wisdom Lit, and Achtung, Zooropa and Pop are the dark times of the prophets [Rattle and hum and All that You Can't Leave Behind are limbo/Sheol Albums for me ... like God part 2 {quoted it's quote of Bruce Cockburn recently here - "heard a singer on the radio late last night, said he's gonna kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight"}, like Van Demens land, like Elevation, Like Walk On, but the albums as a whole feel non-descript to me]) Why did Albus Dumbledore have the content of the Gospel verse inscribed on the tomb of his mother and sister near his home in Godric's Hollow? I think that the answer is the same as the reason that he knew that Harry would use the stone rightly where he himself did not ... because Harry knows where his home is and what the role ofhis "home" in this world is and how it connects to his true home. "Home is where the heart is." While Harry resides in this world and his loved ones, or some number of them, are in the next life, his treasure, his love, his heart, and therefore his home, are there also ... any home in this world is still a home, but also only a "home away from home." It is the same reason that the Catholic Church sometimes refers to this life as "the wayfaring state." Harry knows that the point is not to bring loved ones back with the stone and try to make them at home here again, obviously, but it is also not to try to alter their home, as Albus wanted to do, by simply sending them a message from this side to have them understand his sorrow. Sorrow like that is something you communicate in person and such things are done at home (even when you have to carry home around with you in a small beaded handbag). This requires a certain respect for death, and/or rather for the dead. For Harry, even when it was communicating only with the shades from Voldy's wand, it was still in the context of at least assuming immediate death was unavoidable whether he consented or not (IE he did not even have any choice in the graveyard to abscond if he wanted to, like he does in the end of DH, which of course he does not, and this peace about death of course irritates Voldemort to no end and so he visciously makes up the lie that Harry died fleeing like a coward). In Deathly Hallows, as he walks down from the castle to the woods, it is even more pronounced because he would have the opportunity to try to run if he wanted to (if he would have made it very far is another question, or how many others would have died in his absence). There is a lot here because it is a very deep, and indeed mystical, thing. Martin Heidegger refered to it as "Being towards Death" - the idea that the presence and knowledge of mortality is a key element in human "being." There is, however WAY too much to get into to be able to discuss that here. For here I simply wanted to note that it is centrally connected in Deathly Hallows to the issue of "home." Here, as Harry intentionally walks to his death distinctly planning not to defend himself, there is a very pointed statement about "home." "He wanted to be stopped, to be dragged back, to be sent home ... But he was home. Hogwarts was the first and best home he had known. He, Voldemort and Snape, the abandoned boys, had all found home here ..." (DH 697) Of course, one he forgot there is Hargid, but we find Hagrid in his home in a few minutes. But I think with the three listed one could do a pretty interesting examination of 3 approaches to "what home means." But I'm not going to do so here, which would take more space and work than I planned here. Here I just wanted to note how this worked out in the rest of the structure of the book, in the material plot ... of which a majority of the locals, at least the major sites (meaning not counting the myriad of campsites ... although that tent became very much a homeplace for the trio) od which can be fit into the "homecoming" setting framework: #4 Privet drive, The Burrow, #12 Grimmauld place. All of these places actually functioned as at least a "home away from home" in the story: the Trio at least lived and planned/worked there. Bill and Fleur's can be fit into this category by extension, since the Weasley's are like family to Harry, and he eventually becomes family, and even at the wedding he is disguised as a cousin. Then consider the variety of other homeplaces visited even just in passing: The Lovegood home (Luna's bedroom had my hopes up pretty high about my theory of a new school, with her paintings of Ron, Hermione, Harry, Ginny and Neville ... but either way, even disappointed on my plot prediction, the image was very moving, probably even moreso because the pictures weren't ... actually physically moveing, that is, because they were her own artistic handiwork rather than magic pictures); Malfoy Manner; Godric's Hollow (loved the Church scen there, and the respect of muggle religious bruial with Scripture, aptly chosen of course ...); even walking by Hagrid's hut on the final "Via Dolorosa" with his "cloud of witnesses." All in all, if you compare locations percentage-wise ... homeplaces (including Hogwarts, where that special mention is made of the "abandoned boys") far outweigh locations like the ministry, Gringott's and the muggle coffee-shop. And your heart beats so slow Through the rain and fallen snow Across the fields of mourningLight's in the distance Oh don't sorrow, no don't weep For tonight, at last I am coming home I am coming home |
Comments on ""Home Away from Home" in Deathly Hallows"
-
jkr2 said ... (July 24, 2007 6:37 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (July 24, 2007 6:43 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (July 24, 2007 7:06 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (July 24, 2007 9:00 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (July 24, 2007 10:47 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (July 25, 2007 6:53 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (July 26, 2007 6:38 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (July 30, 2007 8:46 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 02, 2007 12:16 AM)
:
post a commentso the 'sort of homecoming' lyrics at the end of that have me all teary eyed, and forgetting what i was going to say. so apt.
so i'm presuming that people reading these comments are ok with spoilers. how can we discuss without them indeed?
firstly. are you ok with the fred thing? i know you were rather fond of the twins.
secondly. i was so stunned at how close people had gotten with the theories. i shouldn't have been, really considering the time and thought and intelligence and insight that had gone into them. but that was wonderful all the 'oooooh xyz was RIGHT' (at least partly). as much pleasure was the 'oh my goodness. that is completely unexpected!'.
my head is a mishmash of images and thoughts. i had my quibbles. i am sure it's being picked apart all over the internet now. but i'm so pleased, in the end, to know what it was that jkr (her very own self) had invisioned all this time. i was chuffed to know that i had picked the 'ships' correctly, and just deeply satisfied with the part the trio as a whole had to play.
the depth of harry's soul really just delighted me, in the end.
i am looking forward to hearing more of what you have to say, merlin.
jo
Merle, are you going to write something more about deconstruction of Dumbledore? It was necessary I think, but it makes me doubt exclusively Christian meaning of the series. In fact DD's disregard for Snape's soul and making him use unforgivable curse for "greater good" gives me some headache.
completely off topic for a moment - i'm presuming you've heard 'windows in the sky'? my love for that song knows no bounds. even with one clumsy-ish 'rhyme'. adore it.
jo
Jo,
(PS as far as the one who might have stuff just pop up in his inbox uninvited before he is done ... Pauli has his forwarding of the comments to him via email turned off until he has finished the book ... so I have decided to throw all ideas of "spoiler-free" or "spoiler-warning" out the window)
I'm still not talking about the Fred thing, thank you! ... just kidding. Yeah, I was really sorry to see him go. And it feels sort of odd for one of the twins to be gone but not the other. She did that image well though, I think ... if I was more savvy than I am I would have guessed that Fred was going to die when George lost his ear in a way that could not be healed ... in the end it symbolizes that George has a part of himself (Fred) missing. This is obviously true for everybody when anybody they know dies ... but in a special way for twins (doubly loaded because it is the ear that is lost, a communication element ... which relates to the whole "twin-speak" thing - which I thought was pulled off best in the movie of POA, movie 3).
On the pre-release picks - yeah, some people had some great picks. I think it was from one of your comments on something way back when that I first heard the idea of Regulus being RAB and using Kreacher and the locket in Grimmauld place ... of course the plot twist is that Reg did not make the elf drink the potion, he accepted his own death by the inferi after drinking that potion himself. And of course, the theory of the scar as a horcrux (still wish I would have gotten that whole head through the veil thing right lol ... but then that is why I only write explication ... Rowling is the one actually talented enough to come up with and write a gripping story). Somebody had the diadem in the school in the ROR right. Red Hen had a recurrence of the shrieking shack right ... lots of good stuff.
On the "ships" - I was actually REALLY pleased with that material, and not just because I was right as well on it. In the middle of the book I was actually thinking she may have been pulling a very meaningful switcheroo and that Harry and Hermione were going to wind up together after Ron left. The point would have been, it seems to me, that Ron and Hermione are what is in the cards, what is in the nature of things as far as alchemy goes etc etc, they are "made for each other" AND they have had a lot of experience together over 6 books of being, as John Granger says "The Arguing Couple," of hammering their friendship and then their romantic relationship out. BUT, experience can change things and that is some pretty intense experience that Hermione shares with Harry after Ron leaves ... the whole scene in the graveyard, the saving Harry from the snake, the accidental breaking of the wand, the being on the run just the two of them.
Well, as you know, in the end the natural pairs work back out and are what happens, Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione. But in the short-term, in that scene where Harry and Ron are doing the locket in, I think we have another instance of Harry not quite getting everything spot on.
This is just my personal theory here, but I think that while for him he may have only ever viewed her as a sister, I think she may have been experiencing something more in the emotional department for him. So let me explain ... I think she was DEFINITELY feeling something more in the department of raw emotions concerning Harry - with all that stuff I just cataloged from the book how could she not be. But there I mean very much RAW emotion, as in not interpreted - more basic feelings ... gender based feelings too but not having gone through levels of interpretation. For Hermione I think her emotions toward Harry have always been in the context of being in relation to her emotions toward Ron, and now here is this unique situation that has not really happened before, especially with regards to the central story arc of the battle against good. In book 5 (which I think is a central bookend with 7 in the second half - certain key reversals etc) it was Ron and Hermione who were at headquarters while Harry was in the dark (and then, like I said in another post, I think that, after recovering from Ron being thick in book 4 and not asking her to the ball first, it is not until they are both made prefects in book 5 that she again starts to interpret her emotional experience with Ron along the specifically romantic lines), and in book 7 they are the ones who have the leaving plans worked out etc, etc and so on and so forth ... and then all of a sudden - bang! Ron is gone and the situation is reversed, it is HArry she is on a certain inside track with, and she can probably figure that Harry sees her mainly as sister, but that might not necessarily stop a certain emotional experience on her part - very intimate to be at an emotionally charged gravesite and be the one he leans on etc. Look at the graveyard this way ... If it had been Ron there, as a "brother" - would they have held hands or walked back out with Harry's arm around Ron's shoulder and Ron's arm around his waiste? This is not to say necessarily that for Harry that was yet fully interpreted into romantic emotion, but it is gender-based emotion. And for Hermione, who is not biologically his sister, it could probably be easy to start wondering if things are changing in a way that is beyond her control but with which she will have to cope ... is experience maybe now leading to a situation where other interpretive steps will have to be taken, or are at least more possible, maybe more prudent? - like letting go of Ron and interpreting her raw gender-based emotions for Harry along the lines of Romance, rather than the brother-sister feeling.
Keep in mind that for Hermione, knowing Ron and Knowing Harry has always gone hand in hand ... ever since the first year. And only through a process of 6 years of experience do the parameters of nature come to fuller fruition. But you remove one element and you change things drastically. In the context of the fact that she has known them simultaneously in the trio since the beginning, remove Ron from the situation of knowing Harry and knowing Harry might become radically redefined.
This is at least the answer I have come up with on the shipper question in this book, especially in pondering the question of "why is Hermione so mad at Ron for so long after he gets back, when she knew and was talking with him about their mutual mis-givings and confusions before he left, and Harry is the one most to be expected be mad at Ron for leaving because of what it says about doubting Harry etc?" she is so mad because she is in love with him but a drastic move like that (Ron leaving) in that situation of it now being just her and Harry makes it confusing and dangerous to their relationship - not because she is a strumpet who will simply go to the next available bed or because Harry is some man-on-the-make ... but because what they are involved in is heavy stuff and there are already very powerful emotions between them - gender based emotions that thus far have fallen into the interpretation of things like the fierce loyalty a sister often has for her brother. But with Ron gone, and for so long, she probably starts to wonder if maybe experience is not leading a different path ... she holds out for a while, keeping distance from Harry out of precaution, but time wears on, and then they are sharing a very traumatic emotional experience for Harry at his parents grave ...
In the end it never goes fully there ... they simply walk out of the graveyard with his arm around her shoulder and hers around his waiste - they don't stop at the kissing gate and kiss or anything ... and then there is the shakeup with the snake and the wand breaking and Harry is a little bit more distant, but there is still some unsure affection eminating from Hermione ...
... and then Bang! Ron's back ... so what is a girl supposed to do with that? And Ron and Harry are able to get back in tight, and even tighter from the experience, right away, but she has been going through a pretty confusing emotional odyssey in Ron's absence. And what she feels and what questions she has about her feelings in regards to Harry in Ron's absence (at least as I am saying I think they are there), having worked through that odyssey - all this is a part of what makes their (Ron and Hermione) relationship stronger now.
That is what I like about Rowling in this aspect. It's not either-or, it is a going deeper. A lot of writing in the shipper wars was, I imagine, fairly adolescent. And Rowling made some comments on it here and there as being a bit silly how intense and heated people got over it. But, while that was a little toungue in cheek on her part, her answer is not to dump romantic love and "shipping questions" out of the story altogether. Her answer is rather to do some real narrative exploration of the issues. (And make no mistake, she is VERY good at writing of romantic content with real character ... that whole thing of Ginny whispering about that being the silver lining she was looking for - that is dialog gold like George Lucas never could have imagined or pulled off no matter how many cartwheels in how many fields he had Anakin and Padme doing)
Andrzej,
It will take me a bit longer to respond to that issue since it is so huge - the Dumbledore back-story was huge (But looking back down at what I wrote, I rambled on for a good bit on the matter ... not necessarily well organized, but a good bit). For now I'll just say that I do think it was necessary too, but also that I don't think it was total deconstruction. In the end there is a difference between where Grindewalde and Voldemort have gone, and even where somebody like Umbridge has gone. But such issues are, I think, neither gray nor Black and White, but in bright vivid colors, but sometimes colors are hard to interpret morally and sometimes reality does happen in a way that can at least seem very close to a colored version of gray that resembles some very modern/abstract art. Take for instance Molly cursing Bellatrix ... Rowling leaves it unclear there - no light color of the curse mentioned, but I am guessing it is green ... 1 direct hit to the chest and Bella is dead. I still hold to everything I said about not killing if possible etc etc, but in the heat of battle when things are not ideal, and especially with emotion running high, and when there is the presence of "clear and present danger" etc, I think you get a situation where, while it would be preferable not to kill, not to use something like the AK, the situation is just such that the only way a human being can handle it is to kill, a human being with natural limitations.
But as far as Snape goes ... I think the main thing that you get in this book is that same kind of thing. Snape has at least dabbled in dark arts, he has been a death eater, even if he has not killed before he has . As regards his soul, he is, as is Albus Dumbledore, and really all of us to some degree or another, scarred already. There were some at the time of book 6 and the advent of the "good Snape" theories, who seemed to me to be painting it out that the AK would be no big deal as long as only 1 requirement was met - that Dumbledore willed Snape to do it. For me that was never good enough and still is not. For me the second requirement is that Dumbledore be dead already, or on his way there on a short-term and inescapable timeline. The "1 requirement" option gets to close to suicide for me, and with Snape doing the AK, assisted suicide, even if it is done for the "greater good." With the thing of the ring curse I think it is removed from that realm, even if the waters are a bit muddy. Dumbledore's sin in that case is putting the ring on, going to magical/unnatural lengths for obsession with seeing his family again and expressing his remorse to them. It is not wishing to die as an expedient measure to catapulting Snape into close enough ranger to really mess Voldy up or anything like that.
AS it happened the irreversable impending death was not willed and the AK death is, from the moral and psychic standpoint, for me, modified by that fact (I don't claim I could prove it to be nullified all together, but I do think modified and mitigated considerably ... which might be the best case scenario to be had with, as I'll talk about in a mo', the cards that are on the table). It is still at least "unhealthy wear and tear on a soul" ... but it is also not the same thing as it would have been for Draco to kill. To be clear, I mean that the objective quality of the kill is not the same. The "objective quality" of any volitional action, precisely because it is volitional action by a human being who is an acting person, is effected by subjective stance and factors. I think there is a part of DD that takes into consideration Draco's age and experience vs Snape's, and operates out of pity and seeing it as tragic to stain a younger, less worn soul, but even moreso I think it is that there is a difference in what it would be for Draco to kill DD vs Snape doing it. Subjectively Snape knows the situation, knows that while what he is doing is objectively killing/murdering, the person he is killing would have been dead already if not for his own (Snape's) action, and that those actions did not "save his life" in the normal sense, but only in a temporary way. For Draco noe of this exists subjectively - meaning that as an acting subject this objective knowledge is not a part of his situation, he has no access to it. Thus, for him to cast an AK and kill DD would be objectively a very different thing, and subjectively as well. In other words, Snape's soul is, yes, more worn and weathered, but also a bit stronger, than Draco's ... it can take a hit a bit better without being as heavily affected (regretably because of a certain amount of callouses but that is just the situation we find ourselves in). Combined with the fact that Draco doing it would objectively be a worse hit to be taken by the acting subject ... in a limited situation (especially given that Draco is under orders from Voldy to do it anyway, through no action of DD and Snape anyway, and he might just force himself to do it) this may be about the best situation possible ... nobody willingly fully commits "murder" - it would most optimal if nobody had to kill, but (one of the things that has always bugged me personally is the non-challant way some handle such issues, especially on things like using phrases like being a "git-er-done" real world type and things like that. In a fallen world killing may be, at least on the practical level, unavoidable sometimes, such as in war or self defense ... but in my book anybody who has not actually had to pull the trigger and, say, puke every night for a week after the first time killing another human being, has the right to sit around in suburban America and pontificate about "gittin-the-job-done" and "peace-nicks" being wimps or things like that ... which extends also to carrying guns in America - I know a number of people in favor of concealed carry laws who seem to think they could pull of being James Bond in the heat of the moment, and knowing them I think they are sadly deluded and would be wind up choking, peeing their pants and blowing their own foot off pulling the thing out before then handing it over to the hardened criminal they thought they were going to pull a John Wayne on ... all that to say that I do not think even killing justified by self defense etc is without its effect, and so I would not say it is not an issue at all that DD has Snape kill him with an AK, I do think it is a question that should be asked ... but I also think there are situations and factors that mitigate the force of it on Snape's soul somewhat and the in working with a limited and not ideal situation ...)
I would say that my reading of DD in this case is that he knows it is not the ideal path ... the ideal path would have been that MArvolo Gaunt was not an inbred bigot and his daughter could have been free to fall in love with the muggle Tom Riddle, who would not have been a bigot either, and their son Tom Jr would have grown up happy and healthy and not become Voldemort, and Severus Snape's parents would have gotten along happily and he would not have gotten into certain things that helped Voldemort, and his own (DD's) family situation would have gone otherwise (his sister never would have had that happen to her ... and Rowling seems to leave that detail of what exactly those boys did to her conspicuously absent, which is usually a strong indicator that the blank to be filled in is sexual in nature) and he never would have been tempted to put the ring/stone on to try to communicate with them ... but those are not the cards on the table as he has them ... some of the cards on the table have been dealt to him beyond his control and some of them have been dealt because of his own failings (as all human beings have). But now that they are on the table in this way ... what is to be done with them?
In short, just as with the question of what is a human being with limited foresight and power to do when, like Molly, they see their child narrowly missed by a killing curse from a woman they know to be very powerful and dangerous and there is very clear and present danger - just as with that situation, what is a human being like DD supposed to do with those cards that are on the table now that they are there, regardless of whose fault it is that they are there that way?
I think that is the main thrust ... Dumbledore is a human in a fallen world. He has made mistakes. He has had to make some tough calls and on some rough guesses. It is the best all around for Snape not to know what Dumbledore suspects about the fact that Voldy used Harry's blood. It is not something he can say for absolute sure anyway. But beyond that, Snape will be the delivery guy for the information for Harry, and if Snape knows there is a chance Harry will survive, then Harry will know, and that compromises the very thing that is the final ingredient to the survival itself - Harry believing that he goes to die, with no caviats for survival, and his accepting death willingly. It is a huge burden for Severus to carry, thinking that he sends Harry to his death, and that is on top of the fact that he spent most of his adult life so far trying to keep HArry alive to atone for his involvement in Lily's death ... a HUGE burden to bear. But essential to the plan working as it does.
anywa, just my preliminary rambling thoughts on it.
no time to read through your response to andrjez unfortunately. hopefully will remember to come back to it. the 'unforgiveables' is giving me a little headache too.
however i find your view of the h/hr thing very interesting. i was having a similar conversation with someone who considers themselves a 'trio shipper' and was arguing for the mutual attraction - i think centre-ing on hermione.
i guess i don't see it. i can totally imagine an intense platonic love that doesn't then go to the sexual/romantic arena. there are blurry areas there, that can merge and become confused i suppose, or certain circumstances would cause an added element to be developed. (actually lots of marriages are like that.) but i don't think it has to go there. and for the ron/harry connection - you say they don't go out with the arms around each other - i think that speaks much more to the cultural taboos there. i think they have an incredibly close bond. ron is the thing harry would miss most. if they were in a culture that allowed it i think they WOULD have walked back - arms around each other.
i will think more about what you say here, but i think that hermione's anger was because she had actually started to open up to ron more and act as though they were together and he left her THEN! she would have been so humiliated and angry. it would have felt like a rejection of her. and we all know how she can hold a grudge (rita skeeter anyone?). bless her.
also i think it was interesting how harry and hermione kind of floundered about without ron's energy there. it really showed up their balance and what they needed from each other. i love love loved that it was a story really focused on that in the end.
sorry this is disjointed. i'm writing bits while back and forth to the computer doing stuff with the children.
talk to you again soon.
cheers,
jo
Jo,
I guess I would not say I am a "trio shipper" just because it make me think too much of "menage trois" type situations. I would say that as far as the whole series is concerned certain people were meant to be together in the end but along the way there are certain elements or situations where other pairings seemed like possibilities, and that those instances are not just "side-tracks" but actually contribute positively to the final outcome. I think Harry was meant to be with Ginny since book 2 but the whole Cho thing in books 3-5 fit in as one of those situations of "other possibilities." But I think of the pairings as "always competing" ... I think Hermione is meant to be with Ron, but if not him (for some reason) then Harry, at least from her side of taht possible equation (but this book, with it's heightened action and anxiety natural to the gravity of its content and the extreme isolation of the two of them, compared to all other situations in the series, where they have always been more in the midst of more company, at school etc, is the only place where that possibility has come even anywhere near this close to the surface even for her ... although I think a concept of a unique connection between her and Harry played somewhat on the latent level briefly in book 5 in her initial surprise that it is Ron who gets the other Gryffindor prefect badge).
I agree on the reading of a feeling of rejection from Ron but I think that that is a thing that co-exists with the other and that they sort of resonate off each other ... particularly because their (Ron and Hermione's) solidarity has always grown in the context of relationship to Harry ... like in book 5 when he tells them off for bickering all the time and then Ron is the one who sort of represents for the both of them telling Harry that they have talked and agreed that they should be less animated but also that Harry is taking other things out on them.
I guess the main thing I was saying is that Ron's leaving and absence, including the feeling of a rejection by Ron, seems to me to throw Hermione's disposition into a grey area distinctly in a situation where she is in close confinement and intense "heavy material investigation" (such as Harry's grief on visiting his parents grave) with the one other person who would be a real possibility, and the same movemnent also changes in dynamics. It is like Ron both seemed to reject her AND threw her into an arena that is by nature gray and shifting and unsure ... an unsettling thing for their relationship and one I would think she would be upest about in a unique way (at the same time as being upset about the feeling of rejection)
It does not seem to cause a problem for Harry himself, but I could easily see how from the other side or the outside, one could wonder about his disposition in it, especially from the evidence of "types" in the book ... outside of Ginny the only other love interest he has shown in the books is a Ravenclaw, which is the house Hermione would have been in if not Gryffindor. In fact, all of Harry's other female interaction, at least on the level of anything of closer understanding or interest (not necessarily romantic, but a unique affinty for a girl on any substantial level) is for "Rowena's Girls" ... Harry does not have "eyes for" Luna but he has a special affinity for here and particularly in an area that it seems to me (although I can make no pretenses to being any kind of an expert or even very knowledgeable) would touch a teeneage girl's heart ... the social event of a party (and I honestly mean that in no way condescendingly or anything like that ... I was always a pariah in highschool and college - slept through most of my senior year of highschool actually, well, slept through the parts I was supposed to be awake for but then was then started certain vampire habits, hence always working night-turn jobs like this one - so it is pretty much generally out of my realm of reliable knowledge and it's only after years that I come around to having more respect for it, the whole thing of social fucntion and events, and that probably from caring about my friends kids, the way certain things like that seem important to a girl not even necessarily because she is developing romantic feelings for a boy, but that there is a certain something in it of identity as a girl ... and a girl like Ramilda Vane probably has no real personal interest in Harry, but here interest in accompanying him to the party is not, it seems to me, the same as taht in simply accompanying any famous person anywhere ... I'm not trying to use her as an exemplar because she does seem to be one of the ones who are, as her name suggests about it, vain, and I think it can exist as a very real thing in non-vain ways, just noting it as an example of a phenomena it seeems to me like does exist for girls as a gender tinged thing)
All that to say that if you look at Harry's female involvement across the board in the series, you would, if taking the house system as a classification system of personality types, say that Harry's type of a girl to either go after or even develop a friendship with (excluding the unique instance of Ginny [and in book 6 on the train there is a pointed statement that Harry forgot that when they are at school Ginny does not really hang around with them regularly and has her own group of friends] ... and unless you want to include Moaning Myrtle - but, we'll um, stick to living persons lol) - Harry's "type" seems to be the Ravenclaw girl, into which class Hermione would fall by nature (brainy) ... just saying that the "type-setting" lends itself naturally to an objective question of Harry and Hermione (and that I think that the "type-setting" is a background against which what actually happens shows up as a foreground and the way the background sets off the foreground is part of what defines the foreground elements in the painting) ... and that I see the Harry-Hermione "possibility" as part of the background of both the Ron-Hermione and the Harry-Ginny foregrounds (although each of them has other elements too: Cho and Krum mainly) ... but the tightness of the trio throughout the series makes this instance a pretty pointed one ... I would even say that there is a unique tension between the trio structure as "larger communal" and the romantic couple structure, a tension that positivley contributes to the shape of each structure in the books (I think this is the core of what Harry is wondering about in book 6 when he thinks about what might happen to the trio if they date and then breakup).
I guess my biggest piece of evidence for the tension of that situation being composed partly of the question of a Harry-Hermione thing is that it does seem to be concretely a worry for Ron ... based on what we hear from the Riddle-Hermione and Riddle-Harry when the locket is opened. One could argue, I guess, that the riddle soul is making it all up but there is some pretty specific stuff there that it would have trouble knowing, and if that part comes actually from Ron himself, then the other part, the romantic worry, may too.
Now, I should offer some support of the Horcrux actually being aboe to "tap into" things like that, and part of this will be to offer support that it happened with all three. The first thing is to examine the HC material in the "The Ghoul in Pajamas" chapter, for here is the biggest evidence AGAINST: "While the magical container is still intact, the bit of soul inside it can flit in and out of someone if they get to close to the object. I don't mean holding it for too long, it's nothing to do with touching it ... I mean close emotionally. ginny poured her heart out into that diary, she made herself incredibly vulnerable. You're in trouble get too fond of or dependent on the Horcrux." (DH 105 ... emphasis added). so the locket touching the chest seems to be excluded as a "means of entry." But I think this is a little bit of "narrative misdirection" here, for we find later that there IS a noted change in disposition of the person wearing the locket as they travel.
But also I think Hermione's understanding, while definitely, no questions asked, is MILES and MILES ahead of anyone else except maybe Dumbledore, is still imited. The locket hangs by their hearts, the seat of emotion. And they are, in a way, very emotionally bound up in the locket HC, in a way similar to the way Umbridge got involved in it. Even though Umbridge does not know it is an HC, as Ginny did not either, she did invest a bit in owning a locket with Slytherin's "S" on it, as a symbol of pure-blood ties (although she lies about it - but she is very emotionally vested in that lie). For the trio it is the emotional investment of their mission ... in both cases it is a serious emotional investment connected to core identity and tied to the locket - and I am reading that as a doorway in.
Second I would point to an image-borrowing text-hint. It would be crazy to deny, with the way wearing that thing around the neck affects the disposition of the wearer that rowling is borrowing from Tolkien's ring - and I think she uses the image great (in other words in saying she is borrowing I mean nothing negative ... I consider that there are only 3 original thoughts or concepts in all of the world: creation, sin and redemption ... and the only one we pure humans can take full credit for is the bad one ... everything else is all borrowing, but in "subcreation," as Tolkien called it, in art there is also room for true "creative genius" and "orginality" - I think rowling does a great job with this image when borrowing it). But there is a more direct text clue I think.
"Presupmtion!" echoed the Riddle-Hermione, who was more beautiful and yet more terrible than the real Hermione." (DH 576).
One of the all time lines in literature that will give me chills is that of Galadriel when Frodo offers her the ring- that she will be more terrible and beautiful than any - "all will love me and despair."
Also witnessed here is the consideration of Freud which I think to be valid to a point, the connection between mother and romantic-interest/wife (in other words I think the connection of mother-figure with a male's gender-based conception fo feminity, whether a positive or negative effect, is valid - I just don't think it necessarily involves a concrete drive for violence to father and sexual union with mother in particular and I think there are other paramters, particular to general parent-child relationship, that impact relation to each gender of parent in was unique to the gender though).
"Least loved, always, by the mother who craved a daughter ... Least loved, now, by the girl who prefers your friend." (DH 376)
I think that all of this adds up to something that the locket, worn equally by all 3 in shifts and all of that, can pick up on ... especially from Ron and Hermione when they are all there and then from Hermione when Ron is gone. I'm not saying the locket picks up from Hermione that she is distinctly wanting Harry over Ron, but I think it can pick up on a fear in her that Ron will think this, and then possibly a confusion and fear about the possibilities of the way that experience might change the dynamics of the relationships (that is the main thing I see going on here, the interplay between "nature and nurture" or whatever heading you want to look at it under, the interplay between what is more in the "nature of things" - "types" and all of that - and experience, how the two are in tension and impact each other in the way concrete events happen.
As far as the arm-around thing and cultural taboos, I can see the point to a certain extent, but only so far. I can see guys walking closely with mutual arms around shoulders, on level with each other, as indeed, the marauders are in the picture Harry finds in Sirius' old bedroom(especially as drawn by GrandPre in the US/Scholastic version). But I would maintain that the arm on the shoulder and arm below around the waiste has a more masculine-feminine inter-relation tone to it (indeed Rowling describes the physical phrasing very distinctly, and it works partially because of the old couple they are poly-juiced as, but then it also is part of it that they poly-juice as precisely a married couple too ... actually I think it is a really great image in general with a lot of different tonal connotations, including the image of how this experience ages them as people, it is a very endearing picture of the "middle-aged muggle man [and] his small and rather mousy wife" [DH 322]as they "turned in silence and walked away through the snow" [DH 329]- arms around each other in silence trundling throuh the deep snow of the solitude of the graveyard at midnight) ... I am not saying Harry and Hermione are "getting together" at that point, simply that the phrasing takes on tones or romantic love at a later stage in life, older, a little sadder maybe ... and that it is something that she is going through with Harry without Ron there and that this can naturally impact the imagination and especially of a girl in turmoil with her natural boyfriend as Hermione is, in doubt of what Ron's leaving meant, feeling probably rejection, but also confusion ... I think that all of the dimensions are sort of woven together, blended even, in this image
Anyway, just my further thoughts on it
(And here I have to stop because it begins to get into areas of distinct issues of "sexual orientation" and not even so much cultural "taboos" as issues of how much gender identification and orientation etc are culturally conditioned, issues invovled in discussion of "Hermaphrodites" etc ... all I will say is that I have always had a difficulty with the idea of the "platonic" relationship [indeed with all things of the "Platonist" bent, which genearlly tends to be dualistic and quasi-gnostic ... I'm much more into Aristotle and Plato himself as read by somebody like the French scholar Reale, who made the case that Plato himself was actually much closer to Aristotle than the later Platonists and Neo-Platonists etc] - with the concept of any relationship, same-gender or opposite gender, that is not impacted by gender identity and its role in self-conceptualization/identity - for instance I think a person will relate differently to father than to mother, to sister than to brother male friend than to female friend etc along gender identity lines ... how much these gender conceptions are natural and how much they become conditioned by culture is a further matter)
i could weep.
i wrote a long (and probably rambly) response to this and the internet took it and ate it!
i'll just say (too tired to re-read)that i can't quite agree with your basic belief there (it's 'harry met sally' all over again!) that cross gender relationships always have the possibility of sexual/romantic elements.
maybe if i feel up to it tomorrow i'll re-ramble!
i'm really feeling like the dust is starting to settle from DH. and as you say the 'unpacking' is going to take a long time.
yeehar to that!
cheers,
jo
Jo,
On the Harry and Hermione thing, I am trying to think of how to put into words exactly what I am thinking. The first is that I would not say I was necessarily saying that all cross-gender relationships are equally potentially romantic, but rather that all relationships, both cross-gendered and same-gendered are gender tinged - that gender identity, whether one sides with the "innate" interpretation ("nature") or the culturally conditioned interpretations ("nurture") is one of the deepest issues of identity of an individual human person, and of the communal aspect to the degree that it always impacts inter-personal relationships, whether "I and Thou" (1-1) or "dasmann" (the "group identity" and one's role within it). (And that this is the main context on my statements on disagreeing with the proverbial "platonic relationship" ... a relationship of cross-gendered friendship that is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a same-gendered friendship, but this is, at this level, before I go to my next point, on the general level, not having moved yet from the generally gender-based identity to the more specifically romantic)
The second is that, on the level of the specifically romantic I think of things in terms of "potentials" and "anti-potentials." For instance I would say that familial bonds are distinctly "anti-potential" for romantic involvement (being as the familial is by nature, precisely that, a nature bond, and not, by nature, a volitional bond. The familial bond can then move beyond nature into the volitional realm, through actualization of the distinctly familial brand of charity, but not in a way that replaces the nature-defined/constituted relationship ... some of this will have to do with cultural matters, as in say the matter of cousins - which in the west it is generally accepted/agreed that any degree of consanguinity closer than second cousins is too close [the issue of the "x-removed" cousin seems to me to be generally covered by the age differences that arise generally, although potentials exist for a 'first cousin once removed' relationship of relatively the same age but I am not sure of what mores there are impacting such potentials] ... It seems to me like the difference between such familial bonds and romantic bonds is that the romantic is constituted by volition, with nature governing only the general gender parameters ... but there again the matter drifts towards controversial waters of gender identity, the classical problem of the hermaphrodite etc)
In short, I would see all cross-gendered relationships as having an intrinsic "potential" based in the gender natures (both physical and emotional). I would say that these do not begin as distinctly romantic/erotic potentials, but rather as general gender based potentials that then develop into "romantic possibilities," especially as the emotional and physical characteristics that impact such things develops (IE puberty) (much along the same lines, although in the arena of gender and gender roles, as ego identification occurs in the first six months of life, when, at least as I have heard it told [not being well studied in psychology, this is just what I have heard in general about when the concept of ego individuation begins to occur], the child begins to acquire a sense of a unique self, differentiating out, for instance, the raw phenomena of the sound of mother's voice from the raw phenomena of sound of their own voice connected with certain internal phenomena, as uniquely a different entity and thus a self ... before phenomena were experienced "equally" and later the ability to make the interpretive step of "self" and "other" happened, although obviously not at the level of formalization/verbalization at that point)
so, gender develops, and then somewhere in there gender roles develop alongside familial identity. At that point it seems to me like familial identity, being probably the primary identity outside of ego and gender (and at least alongside gender, if not before, at least it seems like concept of family is articulated sooner than concept of gender, at least in formal ways ... which then brings development of conceptual capabilities into the picture), begins to preclude certain gender roles for certain people as those persons are more and more secured in other familial roles that preclude it (in short, I buy gender concept formation by parents, but not necessarily any type of Freudian necessary drive to supplant same sex parent's role, at least not exclusively).
Anyway, that got pretty mired down, but I would see plenty of other "anti-potentialities" that operate right alongside "potentialities" sometimes, depending on the level, precluding them, sometimes only impacting them etc. In some cultures it is class, in some people it is common interest or lack thereof and, depending on personality, this might contribute to attraction or dislike, depending. In different cultures the function of specific age categories comes into play in different ways. In many cases these factors or potentiality and anti-potentiality seem completely indecipherable - Why is one person attracted to one person and not another? I think the factors are there at play but not necessarily ever decipherable. At some point in the romantic arena they intersect more directly with volition again (in all personal relationships of all types all factors intersect with volition to some degree or another ... to to high a degree and you wind up with a person who is more obsessive, a little bit "fascist" but I mean that not in a "evil way" - just way too up tight about "managing" their personal life - to small of a degree and you wind up in other types of disorder) - you decide to date a certain person, you make a choice to marry a certain person (and like I was saying in that one post on the insanity chiasm, in the Catholic church the Roman Curia is decidedly further investigating recent findings in psychology in the are of how personality disorders impact a person's ability to actually fully make a choice, rather than act out of more overly neurotic impulses, particularly in the arena of marriage annulments
... but as one encapsulating point I don't think that general pontentialities and antipotnetialities can even operate at all after a certain age without formation through volitional acts and habituation ... so I guess that with regards to what I was saying about familial relationship being based in nature and romantic in volition, the way I would describe it is that the general gender concepts and familial roles/identities are established by nature/nurture and when further refined into romantic possibilities is precisely the place where volitional actions begin to impact but indirectly or latently, on a more "diffused" [but no less real] level, romantic possibilities and anti-possibilities [lets put it this way, if you grow up continually becoming habituated in manipulation, for instance, or even just being "bossy," but lets say not to the extent that it affects towards proclivity towards a distinctly immoral or "disordered" level [so let's call it, you are the "bossy type"], this might impact the "type" of person you can "get along with" in "that way"],IE volition or habituation from without impacts nature/nurture ... but then volition will also enter back into the picture in that you will make choices say to go with certain "pre-dispositions" over others ... then you makes choices/decisions on varying levels of commitment in the Romantic sphere)
But with a lot of these "potentialities" things can "change" - one factor of potentiality could lie dormant and then all of a sudden kick in ("I never thought about so and so that way and then one day it just sort of hit me" or whatever) ... in some cases you can have a flat out "reversal" (I know a couple of married couples where, usually the wife, says "when I first met him, he annoyed the HELL out of me ..." ... pretty much what Rowling puts in the relationship of Lily Evans with James "the arrogant toerag" Potter [DH 674])
In any event, when we get to Harry Ron and Hermione I would say that there have been in the series, certain Harry-Hermione "potentials" (such as, for instance, the "Harry gravitating towards Ravenclaw type girls in general" thing ... although in the case of Luna I think those potentials, precluded by certain "anti-potentials" like Harry's focus on Cho, and then the re-developed focus on Ginny, make those potentials resurface in another, although still gender tinged, type of cross-gendered emotional relationship [one in which he is still not necessarily on the level of connecting with her in the way of "people who think the same way" etc, but they do have some connection in some fairly mystical areas, especially experience of death ... and again, this is in interaction with his choices ... he decides to listen to Luna rather than, say, focus on her his angst of being the "outsider" and the "nutter" or transpose it onto her as the "alien" daughter of the lunatic "xeno-phile, as in Xenophilius Lovegood]. and again, I would not say that any one of these "potentials" on its own is enough to make a connection work, and, as I said, some of the "potentials" in general in such things seem to be sort of intangible or unpredictable, some lay latent for long periods and suddenly kick up into active presence etc etc).
My basic argument here is that in the Harry-Hermione relationship, given that it has always been in the context of the trio, the primary "anti-potential" for romance that has developed is ... Ron himself (EG, for the relationship in general and who Hermione finds herself "identifying with" - she assume Harry got the prefects badge and finds out it was Ron). When it hasn't been Ron it has been a rival of Harry ... Krum, and even then it leads back to obvious tension with Ron (In the book series this is book 4, in the movie series I think they begin to develop more distinctive gender roles with Hermione earlier, in movie 3 [although not necessarily romantic, per se, but areas that will, it seems to me, directly impact the romantic, such as Hermione's attempt to appeal the "Lupin within the werewolf" through feminine "understanding" or gentleness, and with Ron it is calling him "Ronald" the same way his mother does at points ... the main thing is development after after they hit puberty [complicated a little by actors, but especially the actress age/appearance respective to the timing in the books] ... not that the "role models" of romantic roles thinking are not going on before this, but not on the same level of reality ... before this it only seems to exist in cruel taunts such as Malfoy saying Potter has himself a girlfriend, Ginny ... of course, Ginny, being as fiery as she is, could undo my entire system here ... depending on how you interpret her disposition to Harry along the way ... but I would argue that these things don't really hit that level of maturing romantic attraction till her fourth year).
Anyway, my main argument is still ... take the Ron "anti-potentiality" of the Harry-Hermione potentiality situation and things change. It could be that any number of "anti-potentitalities" could take its/his place eventually, but in the short run, because of how big a role he has in Hermione's and Harry's relationship because of the trio dynamic, that whole issue is is going to be dominated by that tension and then absence and any other "anti-potentiality" is going to be eclipsed by the disturbing absence of the big one - Ron (and inter-laced is all the stuff the "responsible adults" like Rita Skeeter have been feeding their generation all along, the excitement of the "news about budding relationships - ooh-la-la" etc) - not that she will start "going for Harry" right away, but that the whole thing is topsy-turvy in a way in which the reasons it is topsy-turvy encroach dangerously close on the realm of conscious awareness for a girl in her position (who still has sympathy and many other feelings for Ron, not wanting him to have to suffer the full weight of a mistake ... losing is girl-friend not because he directly rejected her, but indirectly through his own thick-headedness and difficulty working out his disposition on the whole "Harry has to save the world and I am just his sidekick, but still about to receive a death kick from the big really bad guy, against who Harry said he and Dumbledore had a plan and now I'm wondering if they were just sitting up there sipping fire-whiskey and playing wizard's chess all the time ... and how the hell did I ever wind up with this lovely assignment" thing)
In short, this is my read of the progression of events in Ron's absence: 1. Hermione is upset with Harry because of his role in Ron "rejecting" her, 2. Hermione is worried, at least subconsciously about what might develop between her and Harry and tries to distance herself from him on that level without ruining the friendship altogether (during which time Harry is cluelessly stuck back in stage 1), 3. Hermione sees things as just simply unclear because she and Harry are going through some pretty heavy emotional material together without Ron there at all 4. Ron comes back and she wants to rip his head off for putting her through all that, she still wants to be with him very much, but feels, at least subconsciously that he needs to realize the full gravity of the situation he put her in ... anything else risks a danger of him remaining thick-headed enough to pull the same stunt again
Finally, the best way that I can find to think of the particular issue of Harry and Hermione is to speak of the shipper/romantic/couple relationship structure as, again, a plot/character structure competing with the trio structure of the same, that they are in genuine and real tension with each other. But I do not see this tension as a negative thing. I see it like the tension of a string on a violin that, when the bow (the transcendent, of sorts) is applied, produces beautiful music. the music is, though, not always "pleasant" - often it strains and aches like a leading tone seventh note does when done well.
But it is the competition of the two poles, the real tension, that makes the music possible. In this I mean both the tension between the poles of the solidarity of the trio and the shipper pairing (say Ron and Hermione versus Harry as Harry thinks is going on before Ron departs, or in the beginning of book 5) AND the mutual exclusiveness of a Harry-Hermione pairing and a Ron-Hermione pairing. Like I said, I think the Ron-Hermione has been, and remains in the end, the predominant pairing potential and "natural thing" (and obviously comes to fruition in the Epilogue in their marriage and family). And it is also the pairing that, given Harry's lack of romantic disposition towards Hermione (which I think in and of itself here acts in a tension with Hermione's own, not so much going fully into concrete romantic emotion for Harry, but her wondering, in light of the present turn of events and their possible impact on experience and, thus the things it in turn impacts)and Harry's positive inclination towards Ginny (and indeed this probably is at least intimately connected to the lack of interest in Hermione in that way, although it would be a stretch to call it the "cause" ... look at it this way, when Ron leaves there is also a tension between Harry and Hermione, she is potentially a "free agent" in a way he is not ... there is no question for him: while it is on hold for now, if he lives through this whole thing, he's marrying Ginny). The Ron-Hermione pairing is also the pairing that is most conducive to the health of the trio structure.
In the meantime,though, in book 7 when Ron has split for a bit, and thus Hermione is sort of "displaced" or "rejected" AND she and Harry are in a unique and very emotionally packed set of circumstances, which she is more likely to pick up on that fact (throughout the series, the one who has always been more acutely tuned to the emotional parameters of situation,that emotion about life and death impact emotions about romance - cf her explanation to the thick-headed guys of why Cho is crying while she is kissing Harry), AND THUS be more impacted by it. When that tension that happens in this "meantime" (which I put in quotes as a double entendre as a moment that uniquely impacts the meaning in the "shipper/romantic" structure), that tension contributes, when they finally "get back together," to a deeper or more textured/stronger connection between Ron and Hermione.
Anyway, that is my best shot defense of a Harry-Hermione "thing" being part of what is going on with the development of the Ron-Hermione relationship, but it not being a "trio-shipper" thing in that, for one, the trio dynamic stands in unique tension to the "couples dynamic" - but also because the Harry-Hermione thing is not "there" in the same bi-partisan way of "reciprocity" as is the Ron-Hermione relationship way (mainly because it is decidedly not there for Harry, whereas I think that for Hermione, for a period it is only potentially still not there).
And Now For Something Completely Different ... (almost lol)
time to lay that one to rest (I mean myself - you, Jo, of course, must be given the fairness of a parting shot ... although I fear I may have made myself into rather too vaporous and silly of a target to be worthy of a real and serious shot lol)
something just hit me on the whole thing of sometimes making a procrustean bed of the whole 4 elements cosmology thing and trying to pin every #4 that comes along to it ... like for instance, Harry and Ginny, and Ron and Hermione. But it falls for me under the "already liberated from that one" ... I tried to do the same thing with Elizabeth, Darcy, Jane and Bingley in Pride and Prejudice ... and after a certain amount of sore-mindedness I gave it up as a bad job, and so when I saw this one and at first thought "hey! wait! ... 4 of them! I bet ... " I dropped it pretty soon too. I think there is definitely something there in the "4ness" of it, and even something that somewhere back along the ling shares roots with the 4 elements etc but that you can't tie it out that tightly as a 4 elements deal (now watch her come out in an interview next week and say " Ron is earth, Hermione is Air, Harry is Water and Ginny is Fire" and I will have to eat crow again ... hey, wait that sort of works - if she says that ... I said it first lol ... time to stop thinking about it and get some sleep)
Merlin
I should add, without diminishing Hermione's experience in the whole thing, a not of fair sympathy for Ron - just that he had had some pretty rough experience in the whole matter of getting into the ministry and getting out with the locket, with the whole thing of getting splinched and losing all that blood (and Hermione really is to be given a huge round of applause on all of that, not just for having the skill to deal with his wound ... but for the presence of mind she had in the whole thing of thinking on the spot to apparate away from #12 Grimmauld place, and the whole thing of always being ready to go, always having her bag packed and ready so that she could save the boys' skins with a speedy get away, both from the wedding raid and from Yaxley tag-apparating ... always ready to get away without leaving anything behind). I am guessing that, with his family being "blood-traitors" and all, Ron has immense sympathy for "mudbloods" being accused of stealing magic and was totally in favor of what Harry and Hermione did in freeing the muggle-borns in Umbridges court line, but I imagine with the stress of how it jeapordized the locket mission and the impromptu nature of it and the narrow excape and the splinching, I can see how one would be frustrated by the feeling of everything being an ad-hoc mission and things being added to the hoc on a moments notice and that mucking things up.