Molly, and why I dislike her

[donnaimmaculata]

All this nightmare scenario-related talk about Molly and my dislike of her, in combination with camillabloom's delightfully filthy and squicky Molly/Sirius rape fic, and with sistermagpie's discussion of the Weasley twins and casual cruelty in HP made me think that time is right for explaining why, exactly, I don't like Molly. It's not, as one could assume, because she was "nasty to Sirius" in OotP (although this is one of the factors). It is because Molly represents exactly the image of motherhood that makes my hair stand up and my insides squirm with disgust and annoyance.

I know she's got her reasons for being protective. She is also widely considered a "strong" mother figure and her love for her family is often used as an explanation for her behaviour. But love can go horribly wrong and loving someone does not make us infallible.



Molly is a strong mother.

Let's see. In almost every book of the series there is a scene with Molly shouting at her children. In OotP, she shouts constantly. ivyblossom posted an essay once on Molly and the constant Howlers, in which she argues that yelling is a form of violence and quotes an article saying that children exposed to yelling and belittling from their parents are more likely to encounter problems with drugs, self-esteem, and suicide as teens than do children who were beaten. I am no expert on sociology and can't judge on how true this is, but it is certainly an interesting point.

However, I was a child once, and I do occasionally see parents and children interact. I grew up with an overprotective and loud mother (though not nearly as annoying one as Molly) and a laid-back, quiet father, and I always, always felt more respect for my father than for my mother (in arguments; I'm not talking about respect in general). While my mother would constantly nag and raise her voice to make a point, it got old after a while and could be easily ignored. My father would argue quietly, but if he raised his voice on occasion, I could not but obey him. His anger, because rare, was impossible to ignore.

A typical encounter from my every-day life: parents with small children in a supermarket. There are those who, when their kids throw a temper tantrum, start shouting back, dragging the children behind them through the shop and generally making a great spectacle of themselves, without achieving any satisfactory results and giving a highly negative impression of parenting. But there are also those who, when their kids throw a temper tantrum, get at eye-level with the kid and talk to them without raising their voice, have better chances to succeed shutting up their kids and instantly gain my respect. Molly clearly belongs to the first group.

Molly is a loud mother and an interfering mother, but she has no influence on her children. This is something that often gets overlooked: Molly's attempts to make her children obey are ignored; instead of listening to what their mother says, considering it as worthy their attention and taking it as guidelines, the younger children do what they want behind her back and their only fear is that they might be caught and get shouted at. Fred and George don't care at all for anything their mother says and Ginny turns into a very talented, straight-faced liar (which is a trait I cannot but admire, but I doubt this was Molly's goal). They don't stop to think that maybe Molly is right and that what they are about to do is questionable. Molly has no respect for her children and she is not respected by them. At all. She's unable to communicate her wishes to them in a manner they understand and are willing to listen to. How does that make her a strong mother?

Molly loves her children very much

Ah, how many crimes have been committed in the name of love? All right, so she does love her children. But so do Petunia and Vernon Dursley, and can they be considered good parents? The damage they've inflicted on Dudley by spoiling him, overfeeding him and turning him into a bully is at least as considerable as the damage they've inflicted on Harry.

Molly might love her children very much, but she does not regard them as individuals with different predispositions and different needs. There is an excellent essay on Molly, which argues that she doesn't treat her children like people but as colonies. I couldn't agree more.

Molly has a certain image of how her dream child is supposed to be and she tries with all her might to turn all her children into that dream child. What she wanted until OotP was a litter of little Percies. Now, she'd probably prefer little Bills with Percy's looks and occupation. When we first encounter Ron in PS, he says that all his brothers have achieved something outstanding, and that he is expected to do just as well; but if he does, it's no big deal, because they've done it before. I contribute a major part of this conditioning to Molly, as she is the only one in the family whom we see constantly nagging her children about their (future) careers. Also, the scene where Ron gets his prefect badge is rather telling in that respect.

Obviously, she has conditioned her children from their early infancy (Ron is eleven when the conviction that he must "do well" is so deeply rooted that it is one of the first things he ever voices in conversation with a new acquaintance) to perform in accordance with her wishes. This is not a rare trait in a parent. However: Molly doesn't want the children to do well in the field they're gifted at. She wants them to do well in the field she chooses for them.

As much as I dislike Fred and George - these boys are clearly talented. They are imaginative, creative, dynamic, magically powerful, outgoing... They spend their time inventing new magical devices, the use of which is questionable. But it is the task of a parent to recognise their children's individual skills and prod them in the right direction. Instead of saying, "Oh, all right, Fred and George are neither bookish nor have they any love for bureaucracy, but they are interested in inventing new spells and gimmicks, clearly an office job is not the right thing for them, let's think of something that'll suit them" Molly tries to exorcise their abilities out of them (by shouting particularly loudly) and infuse them with skills they don't have. I fail to see how this is a sign of love or support.

And there's more. In CoS, after the twins and Ron have rescued Harry from the Dursleys (doing it against their mother's wish and only worrying that they might be caught, not that they were doing something wrong, forbidden or dangerous), Molly corners them in the garden and - surprise - starts shouting. Her tirade starts with "I was worried, you could have died", but it soon drifts towards "You could have lost your father his job". There is also the obligatory reference to the elder brothers, whose exact copies the younger ones are supposed to turn into.

The worst thing about it, however, is that after shouting at her own sons, Molly turns to Harry saying that she doesn't blame him. It makes sense insofar as that Harry isn't to blame in that particular scene, but it is not the thing to do if you're a mother. She could have well ignored Harry entirely, but she decided to emphasise how much more satisfactory a child he is than her own sons. Ron is a truly loyal friend if he doesn't resent this. Apart from having to live up to his brothers' achievements, he now has to also compete in his mother's affection against his best friend.

In the same book, Ron and Harry get in danger again when they take the car to fly to Hogwarts, and Molly sends a Howler. In the Howler again she addresses Ron almost exclusively; Harry is mentioned only in passing. I have also another problem with Molly's Howler here: Call me naïve, but I think that while parents are entitled to react angrily if their children get themselves into some stupid scrapes, they should show concern and support if the children are in mortal danger - even if it's their own fault. Ron was undeniably in mortal danger here, but Molly shows no concern whatsoever. The Howler is her only means of acknowledging that he flew the car, and a Howler is not exactly best suited for telling her son that she was worried about him. Again, I get no love vibes here.

Speaking of the Howler: I have a particular aversion against people who drag their private issues into public and provoke loud arguments in front of innocent bystanders. It is embarrassing and vulgar, and Molly apparently loves doing it, if her attack on Arthur after he got stitched at St. Mungo's is any indication. Somehow, I don't get the impression that she showed him her love and her concern for him. She probably spent the hours at St. Mungo's the night when he was injured with telling him off for having been so foolhardy.

Molly is a caring woman who wants to protect those she loves

Molly's concept of protecting her children consists mainly in keeping them in the dark and completely ignoring the fact that they are growing up and that they are thinking individuals. In PoA she wants to keep Arthur from warning Harry about Sirius Black, even though Arthur points out - very rightly so - that Harry and Ron are adventurous and keep wandering around and that they ended up in the Forbidden Forest twice. Molly ignores the obvious truth valiantly. She does exactly the same in OotP when she tries to prevent Harry's hearing about Voldemort. Sending Ginny up to bed is either an act of blatant stupidity, if she does not realise that the others will tell Ginny everything as soon as Molly turns her back on them, or an act of childish petulance, if she wants to prove her authority by sending at least one child out of the room. Besides, her attitude reminds me of something: As long as our children are not told about sex, there will be no unwanted teenage pregnancies nor spreading STDs. Yeah, right.

Molly is right in mistrusting Sirius's abilities as godfather

Sirius is by no means a saint. But what he does and what Molly does not it realising that in Harry & Co. he is dealing with people who think and draw conclusions on their own. Molly seems to think that as long as the adults don't spell it out for them, Harry, Ron and the others will not realise that there is something going on that affects them.

That infamous discussion in OotP cemented my dislike for Molly like anything. As camillabloom said, Molly's attack on Sirius ("it's been rather difficult for you to look after him while you've been locked up in Azkaban") is unprovoked - Sirius merely stated that Harry's got him, which is an undeniable fact - it doesn't serve to bring a point across and it is merely designed to hurt Sirius as much as possible. Which shows what Molly's discussion tactics is all about: If running out of arguments, land as low a blow as possible.

Regardless whether she is right or not, I find this form of attack particularly disgusting. It's like telling a man whose family was killed in a road accident, "Well, you had to drive the car in front of the truck," or a woman who has been beaten by her husband, "It's your own fault, you always preferred muscles to brain". It might be true, but it doesn't make the "argument" less despicable.

In OotP we also learn via Molly that Sirius thinks he's got his best friend back in Harry. I find this a bit rich coming from a woman who is unable to realise that her own children are all individuals and who tries to mould them according to her concept of the "perfect child" rather than supporting them in who they are.

Comments

[fleshdress.livejournal.com]

See, I feel for Molly. She's trying to raise her children in a time of violence and loss, which surely can't hlep but remind her of losing her own brothers. As such, I will find any excuse to forgive her. But she doesn't seem to give me any.

I honestly don't know if JKR expects us to respond favorably to Molly, because I don't think Molly ever appears in a truly sympathetic light. I mean, she is like a mother to Harry, but Harry's such a damaged child he would probably latch on to anyone prepared to give him the time of day. After all, how long did it take him to go from wanting to kill Sirius to being excited at the prospect of going to live with him?

So what I'm saying is, yeah, I think you're fundamentally right here. I think good mothers are possibly the greatest people on the face of the planet, but Molly just isn't a good mother.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I fully understand where she comes from; it's only that her way of dealing with pain, loss, and the raising of children makes me grind my teeth in helpless irritation.

I honestly don't know if JKR expects us to respond favorably to Molly

Funny, I always had the feeling that Molly was rather liked. Not madly loved, but considered a good person and a decent mother. I've no idea whether my impression is at all correct, though.

I think being a good mother is the toughest job ever and I can understand women who aren't up to it. But if a woman decides to have seven children, she should be prepared to support and advise them the best even if they don't turn out the way she was hoping for.

[dementedsiren.livejournal.com]

For me, Molly stands as the epitome of the mother whom you resent, grow up disliking, and can barely tolerate in adulthood. Which isn't to say that you don't love her - I would never say the Weasley's didn't love both Molly and Arthur, because I think it's obvious they do. However, they either dismiss her and get on with their lives (Bill with the earring, Fred and George with their career aspirations) or are beholden to her whims and wants (Ron wanting to do as well as she wants him to, Ginny being sent upstairs)

I've got a relatively new and thus undeveloped theory that Percy's penchant for submitting himself to higher authorities (ex. Fudge) as well as his extreme respect for stature and position, comes directly from Molly. Certainly neither Arthur nor any of Percy's older brothers were particularly concerned with any of that, and the only other shaping influence on Percy growing up would have been Molly. Molly with her "career-orientation" and her constant nagging and placing herself in the position of "one who knows best".

All of that aside, I don't actually hate Molly...at least, I don't think I do. She's annoying, and I would hate being her child because I think it would be, at best, suffocating, and at worst painful and humiliating. But we don't have many mothers in HP (Alice Longbottom is nuts, Lily Potter is dead, Narcissa Malfoy is distant, Mrs. Granger practically doesn't exist, Petunia Dursley, well, she's an entire book of issues all on her own). And of the ones we have, I think Molly is one of the better ones.

Then again, contrasting Molly's constant nagging and her tendency to never think her children good enough, and Petunia's constant capitulation and her belief that Dudley can do no wrong, could be very interesting. Which would be better in the long wrong, or are they both faulty methods of parenting? Or are both Molly and Petunia merely human?

*shrug* I don't know. Not a mom myself, don't particularly want to be one, and thus have no basis for sympathy on the subject. Thank you, however, for posting this... it's great food for thought.

[cleverthylacine]

We don't know that Narcissa is distant; we only know that she has been distant where Harry could see her, in public, while surrounded by thousands of people many of whom are no friends to her nor her family, and she's a member of the upper classes after all, which means she'd be likely to be physically affectionate in private.

We do know that she sends Draco loads of sweets all the time, writes often, and that she was distressed when Lucius wanted to send him to Durmstrang because it would be too far away--and won that argument. This doesn't strike me as detachment, much.

[author-by-night.livejournal.com]

I think there's a lot more Molly-type mother's than we realize, and that under that sort of pressure, they might go that far.

The other thing is that while I think Molly went too far, Sirius was going a bit over the bend himself. Also, Harry is mature for fifteen in some ways, one of them being his understanding of what evil really is, but Molly might not realize that. And really, how can you blame her for wanting to shelter them a bit? It's possible she doesn't even realize Harry himself *has* to defeat Voldemort.

I do have a problem with how she acts, don't get me wrong - but I think there's just a lot of parents like Molly out there.

[scary-sushi.livejournal.com]

Your point of view seems particular harsh, although it cannot be denied that in many aspects, you are right: Molly does seem to want to mold a 'perfect child', she does keep her children in the dark and the fact that she doesn't help them develop their own abilities is justified.
But I am under the impression that the wizarding world doesn't help students' orientation: what they do after graduation is clearly up to them, and they aren't offered "Career Day"s or any extra knowledge on what they could be doing: Maybe parents are the only source as to what possibilities the Wizarding World offers. Molly could be doing her job: proposing careers... Anyways, I personally live today in a country highly unstable politically, and I understand where the woman's coming from: my own parents refused to enlighten me as to what was going on (when clearly things were happening) before seeing that, regardless of my knowledge of the events, I was going to act (then they were terrified something might happen to me and told me everything). Finally, I know every parent has expectations regarding his children: it is normal. I, for one, don't thing Molly is a fundamentally bad mother, just a usual mother. We only see her exaggerated side. On a daily basis, I have the feeling she might be less explosive.
But I do agree with you: the Howler is unfit of a good mother. But maybe that's just what's done in the Wizarding World.

[kelex.livejournal.com]

But I am under the impression that the wizarding world doesn't help students' orientation: what they do after graduation is clearly up to them, and they aren't offered "Career Day"s or any extra knowledge on what they could be doing:

Actually, don't we see in OoTP that Minerva sits down with Harry and the rest of the students as well, askig them what careers they see for themselves and Harry wants to be an Auror? And when Umbridge says she doesn't think harry can do it, Minerva gets in Umbridge's face and tells her that she'll personally help Harry through the courses?

... or was that a fanfic I read? either option is equally likely at this point...

[kaysha.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, great essay! :)

I don't like Molly (very much?) either (she's always got on my nerves, and particularly so in OotP), though I do wonder why all of her children turned out so "well" (all in all).

It's that I've seen quite a few of those "Super Nanny" kind of shows lately, where educationalist/child psychologist kinda types of experts observe parents' - well, mostly mothers' - behaviour towards their (aggressive/violent/uncooperative) children and help them correct it by pointing out the mistakes in their child rearing and showing/teaching them alternative methods of getting child X to (not) do Y..

Oftentimes, the children's behaviour is a direct result of the parents' (mothers') constant scolding, yelling etc., thus my conclusion: aggressive behaviour in parents => aggressive (OR shy/withdrawn) behaviour in children. Of course this is not always true, but still..

It'd be interesting to know if Molly's always like that, or if we only get to see her when she's being a "bad" mother.

[kaysha.livejournal.com]

Oh, maybe I should have clicked the links as well! ;) Just noticed that I'm basically only repeating what ivyblossom already said in her post..

[ceilidh]

Wow, so much to say here.

I grew up with an overprotective and loud mother (though not nearly as annoying one as Molly) and a laid-back, quiet father, and I always, always felt more respect for my father than for my mother (in arguments; I'm not talking about respect in general). While my mother would constantly nag and raise her voice to make a point, it got old after a while and could be easily ignored. My father would argue quietly, but if he raised his voice on occasion, I could not but obey him. His anger, because rare, was impossible to ignore.

Me too, very much so. And I try to remember this and not yell at and nag my child, because - it does. not. work. It's hard to break if you've grown up with it though.


Molly might love her children very much, but she does not regard them as individuals with different predispositions and different needs

Absolutely. She thinks they must fit HER mold of a good son/daughter, and WOE BETIDE them if they do not.



I contribute a major part of this conditioning to Molly, as she is the only one in the family whom we see constantly nagging her children about their (future) careers. Also, the scene where Ron gets his prefect badge is rather telling in that respect.

Definitely. That scene really makes my heart hurt in that regard.


The worst thing about it, however, is that after shouting at her own sons, Molly turns to Harry saying that she doesn't blame him.

She does this often - yelling at her sons (especially Ron) and then NOT fussing at Harry for the same thing. Or putting Harry's needs above her children, or pampering him, etc. (*coughdressrobescough*) Of course Ron feels overshadowed by Harry - Harry gets more attention from Ron's own mother than Ron does.

[empressov.livejournal.com]

The dress robes--I must comment here. You know me, I'm not what anyone would call a Ron fan by any stretch but I've never felt such indignation onf his behalf as when he had to wear those hideous robes. Sure it was comic relief for us which I'd bet was JKR's intent but it was unjustified IMO to suggest Molly Homemaker was incapable of altering and improving these second-hand robes. They were mouldy for Merlin's sake!!! Even Ron, who I'm just going to bet isn't one to study the equivalent of home ec spellwork, was bright enough to attempt a Severing Charm on the mouldy lace cuffs and ruffs--you mean to tell me Molly Homemaker couldn't have done a mere wave of a wand to effect this??

And yes, I get they're poor and it's just the Weasely thing to do to put up with second hand rubbish but that argument kind of flies out the door when Ginny, a fourth year who would not have even had 'dress robes' on her school list that year, somehow manages to score dress robes that don't seem to have looked odd or like rubbish after being asked only a few days before the Ball. Ginny the girl rates respectable dress robes but Ron, the one who actually needed those robes according to the school list, gets the shaft. Yes, I think Molly treats Ron, more than any of her children like, like real dirt. And that's saying something.

[imadra-blue.livejournal.com]

You make some excellent points, right down to use sharing the same quiet father/loud mother dynamics. I like this essay. I've no great love for Molly, but she was never one of my favorite characters. I entirely agree with you that she should encourage her children, because I'll be damned if I wouldn't have encouraged Fred and George to do what pleased them. Had she been reasonable, so too might have been they. I like this essay.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I finally got round to replying my emails and comments - I'm glad you liked it, and sorry for the belated answer.

I think it is the essential task of a parent to guide the children in the right direction, to recognise the children's abilities, encourage the good ones ad discourage the bad ones. While Molly tries to discourage the bad ones, she does not realise that she can't twist her children in any direction that suits her.

OT

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Is that your cat? Looks exactly like mine, lol!

Swatkat

[caesia390.livejournal.com]

agree agree. i would draw arthur into the discussion as well. it isn't just good cop, bad cop; the whole family's fucked up. arthur lets molly have her way, and his willfulness is worse, in my opinion - it's insidious.

though i would say that it does encourage a sort of independence, as you yourself noted. bill, charlie, the twins, and ginny are all intellectually aloof to their mother's wishes. percy and ron, not so much. i'm not saying that molly's a good mother, but then what's so great about good mothers? the most fucked up people i know are the ones who can't disassociate their wills from authority. though that might have more to do with a person's innate personality, as the children's differing reactions show.

having argued myself in circles yet again, i will say one more thing - just that i am ever convinced that rowling is an evil genius. i don't trust a damn thing she says or implies. as someone else pointed out, pretty much every character is a text book case of how good intentions, or at least understandable intentions, go awry. the most 'likeable' characters - dumbledore, lupin, molly - are also the most self-contradicting. and i don't for a second imagine that rowling isn't aware.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Heh! You know, I actually like Arthur. I know he's got flaws that are at least as bad as Molly's (or any other character's, really), but I can't help liking him. Which only serves to prove how very personal and biased my likes and dislikes are.

I think Molly's method of upbringing can work with a child that has a 'good' temper to begin with. Basically, all her children are highly individual personalities, but instead of helping them develop their good traits and subdue their bad traits, her treatment only makes them nurse their bad traits, because they prove more useful.

I am sure Rowling is fully aware of the fact that Molly (or Remus, or Dumbledore) are very ambiguous characters. She seems to like Molly, but this isn't something I can criticise, because it is a matter of personal preference. Molly's failure as a mother was already shown in the estrangement with Percy [Hihi, I've typed "Pervy" first. Freudian slip much?], which happened only because she pressed him too much, only to suggest in the end that his promotion was only due to the Ministry's wish to have a spy on Dumbledore's side. This is quite possibly the most cruel occurance that we've witnessed in the Weasley household. Percy's "fault" is not even his: He isn't on the wrong side because he wishes to or because of a judgement in error. His reasons make more sense than those of many of the good guys. He only ended up on the wrong side because we know that the good side happens to be Harry and Dumbledore's.

[caveat-lect0r.livejournal.com]

I'll say frankly that I loathe Molly, and that I think it's a great shame that the two only mothers we see in the HP series are horrible examples of the species (well, we see Narcissa and Mrs. Black briefly, but they're hardly shining lights themselves). Petunia is imbued with very disagreeable characteristics - a nosy busybody who adores slandering her neighbours, and who is too blindly besotted with her son to see what a little monster he is.

In my opinion, Molly is even worse than Petunia: she's portrayed as being a (presumably) good person and loving mother, but not only is she completely out of touch with reality, her children all have extremely serious flaws (Fred and George's careless cruelty, much as I love the boys, Ron's rudeness, laziness, and social irresponsibility, and Ginny's pathological lying) that, while they may be basic character traits, should at least have been somewhat mitigated by a careful, considerate upbringing. All of Molly's children are talented, but in many ways they seem to be as flounderingly directionless as Harry himself, who had no parental guidance.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Petunia causes considerable damage by spoiling her son rotten, while Molly causes damage by constanlty belittling her children. In a way, they both infantalise their children and completely ignore the children's needs and their individual development.

that, while they may be basic character traits, should at least have been somewhat mitigated by a careful, considerate upbringing

Yes. Definitely. The task of a parent is to guide the children in the right direction, without trying to twist them into something completely different, something that they are not. Molly does anything but.

[skylark97.livejournal.com]

Amen. It's not that I think Molly's a despicable person, I just fail to see the saint that people want her to be/make her out to be.

She would have driven me absolutely mad had she been my mother. It's hard enough trying to be a teenager without some adult yapping at you constantly and trying to make you be someone you're not. (And I don't really blame Percy one bit for turning his back on them. Granted, he's on the 'wrong' side. And it seems a bit like he's cutting off his nose to spite his face, but still. He's done and been everything she ever wanted him to be, and the one time he's stood up for himself and had an opinion of his own that's contradicted hers, he's immeadiately out of the family...) Her attitude inspires rebellion in all of her kids, and I think it would in any kid put under those circumstances. (And now, I'm just rewording parts of your argument and repeating them back. I'll stop that now...>_>)

Makes me wonder sometimes what JKRs beef with mothers as a whole is. Are they only caring, considerate, and loving when they're dead? I mean, all mothers have faults because all mothers are humans, but it is possible to have close relationships with them. My mom was my best friend as a teenager. I could confide in her, she helped me work through my problems without flat out telling me what to do, and she encouraged me to think for myself. Ours isn't a perfect relationship, but it sure as hell beats what Molly's got with her kids...

[queenmabsreveng.livejournal.com]

Makes me wonder sometimes what JKRs beef with mothers as a whole is. Are they only caring, considerate, and loving when they're dead?

What you're saying just may hold water -- especially in the whole "fairytale/folklore" light in which HP can most certainly be looked. CinderHarry? The dead and therefore untarnishable image of Lily and the "evil step-mother" image of Petunia coupled with the more realistic, but still somewhat undesirable image of Molly.

Think about any fairytale you've heard of -- the mother figure is either not represented or not the biological mother and therefore evil. It's a facet of what Bruno Bettelheim would call "externalization." The child in hearing the story can externalize his own frustrations concerning his parent. The evil step-parent is the personification of the times where the child is frustrated or made upset by his parent while the good (dead) real parent represents the times when the child is happy with and comforted by his parent. By spitting the facets into two different people, fairytales effectively give a character for the child to externalize his frustrations on, but at the same time it protects the actual parent from being that person. The child won't associate and blame his frustration and anger on his actual parent. By always rendering the "good" parent dead, there is literally nothing the parent can do to mess up her status as "perfect parent." The legacy and reputation of goodness is left to influence the protagonist without any chance to be "dirtied" by present action.

Or something like that. :o) Anyway, especially in PS, the fairytale feeling is very prevalent in HP -- to have the alive parents as not the "perfect fit" for Harry and as not shining examples of motherhood fits the pattern. Unless JKR shows us some insight into Lily's past (ala James) which tarnishes the glow of "perfect loving all-sacrificing mother," she seems to fit the bill of "dead fairytale" mother quite well leaving the other fairytale slot open for the other mothers of HP.

[ex-pixystick865.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more with everything you have mentioned in this essay. I know that a lot of people picture her as a mother figure to Harry, but I've just never been able to. And when she told Sirius that Harry has her, it always made me think "Does he really?" In COS, when Harry arrives at the house and the boys' tell Molly that Harry was being starved and that there were bars on his window, she completely dismisses it. I just watched COS recently, but have not re-read it in about a year, so maybe that only happened in the movie, but I am ninety percent sure it was in the book as well. So, if Harry really has her to look after him, wouldn't she care that her as good as son was locked up and starved?

I simply think she overlooks anything that doesn't fit into her perfect world, and it's as though she is trying to raise a colony of clones. All she is ever doing is critiquing, even when she wants Fred and George to be more like Bill and Charlie, she has nothing good to say to Bill and Charlie when they visit either. It drives me crazy that she is supposed to be this perfect mother, when she is anything but. I've always found it odd that Harry idolizes the relationship the Weasley children have with Molly because I can't really see that there is one.

[madzilla.livejournal.com]

I agree. That whole discussion/argument between Sirius and Molly in OOTP made my blood boil. And I always thught that bit in COS was strange, though she had a it more of a reaction in the book. I had a look in my copy, just for reference:

'It was cloudy, Mum!' said Fred.
'You keep your mouth shut while you're eating!' Mrs Weasley snapped.
'They were starving him, Mum!' said George,
'And you!' said Mrs Weasley, but it was with a slightly softened expression that she started cutting Harry bread and buttering it for him.


Is it possible she's jealous of Harry's growing affection for Sirius, do you think? Or perhaps does she dispprove of it greatly because she doesn't think Sirius is a good parent/role model? Because I can see Sirius being absolutely furious if he heard that the Dursleys were starving Harry - in fact, isn't that what makes the Dursleys treat Harry better post-GOF - the idea that Sirius might turn up if Harry tells him he's being mistreated?

Argh, I'm arguing myself in circles. I think, like everyone else, that Molly cares a lot for her children and Harry, but she makes some fundamental mistakes in her treatment of them. Thy're all getting to an age now where she can't keep the world out any more. Perhaps things will change in the aftermath of the fight in the Department of Mysteries, and Sirius's death. Be very interesting to see how she is in the next book. I'm also wondering if we'll find out more about her brothers, who were killed in the frst war, which might be why she's so anti her children joining/even knowing anything about the Order.

[thepastperfect]

i agree with much of what you said, although it's late and i'm tired, so my reasons for agreeing with what you said have probably already been covered by others. i suppose i have trouble digesting the whole picture because i have this vague sense of liking molly - perhaps because JKR has made it clear that she likes the weasleys very much, even though they have legitimate faults that i'm sure many readers don't think about.

i think OotP drove it home for me - in the earlier books, at least, her motivations seem more understandable and less, well, overtly nasty. arthur really lets fred and george have it when they give dudley the ton-tongue toffee, and if you're not looking carefully you can put molly's actions on par with that - wanting your kids to behave well and all that. unfortunately, her methods of getting her kids to behave don't really work once the kid is over three years old.

it's easy to overlook these things (or to simply not delve into the intricacies of the weasleys' relationships, because there are so many of them and both the author and the reader want them to be a big, clannish, happy family), and i think part of it comes from the series having so much black-and-white and starting out as a kids' book series. the weasleys aren't voldemort-supporters, so that makes them the good guys, despite the less overt problems within the family.

anyway, thanks for bringing this up - i'm anxious to see what part molly will play in HBP.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

i think OotP drove it home for me - in the earlier books, at least, her motivations seem more understandable and less, well, overtly nasty.

This is something that I also observed in my reaction to Molly. I wasn't that much bothered by her in earlier books; I've never really liked her, but my aversion was by no means as strong as it is now. Unlike you, I had the vague sense of disliking Molly, and after that was cemented by OotP, I went back through the books to look for other instances where she annoyed me and why.

What I really like about the HP books is that the good guys are just a messed-up bunch of poorly assorted people who not only don't get along with each other but also aren't even able to cope with their own problems. Molly is a prime example, but so is Arthur, whose reaction to family conflicts seems to be to withdraw into his own private world of batteries and plugs. He doesn't seem to take much responsibility for raising his children. I like Arthur nevertheless, because his quiet ways agree with me.

her methods of getting her kids to behave don't really work once the kid is over three years old

She doesn't communicate with the children as with thinking individuals and tends to infantilise them all - even Bill, who is in his twenties. This isn't a rare trait in a mother, but in Molly it is particularly pronounced.

[lookupdown.livejournal.com]

Great essay, and I totally agree. You've expressed the exact reasons why I can't stand Molly.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed it and that my reasons seem plausible to you. And sorry for the very belated reply - I'm working my way though my inbox and have only just come across your comment.

[lenagirl42.livejournal.com]

I almost hate to say this, but I love Molly. Actually, I love all the Weasleys- Percy is my favourite character throughout the books, and Fred, George, Arthur and Ron aren't far behind.

I have no basis to objectively judge another person's mothering, not even being a mother myself. I can only say that I don't think I would mind having Molly as a mother. My own mother is also someone who yells and is generally overprotective, and most of the time, I don't mind. I tend to yell back :D and we get along fine. Using the example you gave: if I were to throw a tantrum in a supermarket, my mother would be likely to get upset, raise her voice, and probably drag me physically out of the store. I can recall her doing this with my sister when I was a kid. And the thing is that had she ever gotten on eye level and tried to talk either one of us out of it, we'd never have listened. I admire my mother's parenting methods a lot more- I feel that as a kid, sometimes all I needed was to be unceremoniously dumped in the car, taken home (with yelling the whole way) and put in my room for a while. And I can honestly say that I've never felt violent urges, or wished that I'd been disciplined a different way.

I think there's a big difference- an intentional difference- between the wizarding world's interpretation of mothering and our own culture's view of the subject. We're a lot more...I'm trying to say this without sounding really insensitive, which is not my intention. Okay, we're a lot more encouraged to complain about things, on the whole. We're more sensitive. And I think people are a lot more in tune to their parenting and how it affects them in our culture. There's a huge amount of resources concerning how to raise children, child psychology, child development, etc. And I'd wager that for a lot of kids in the WW, but especially the Weasleys, they honestly don't see their mothers as much as kids in our world. With the exception of Percy and perhaps Ron, I'd say that the Weasley children treat their mother like a sort of constantly-in-orbit figure that sometimes ought to be appeased, and that of course they love her because she's their mother, but they don't really hang out with her very much. They're away at boarding school for most of the year, and have each other/other friends to be with most of the rest of the time. Look at Bill and Charlie- they basically come home, give Molly a kiss on the cheek, endure her nagging with cheerful resignation for a week or two, and then go back to their own successful, separate lives. They aren't in therapy every week talking about their issues; they aren't on Dr. Phil sobbing out stories about how much they were affected by bad parenting. I think that's because parenting simply does not affect people in the wizarding world as much as it does in our world.

[lenagirl42.livejournal.com]

This is not to say that I think that's a good thing- Percy's a great example of why it is, objectively, a very bad thing. I'd say Percy's very sensitive and that the Weasleys are almost entirely to blame for his split with them. It totally fucked him up. It's a bad thing, but it's a wizarding thing.

There's this word I keep seeing thrown around on Weasley discussions- empathy. I honestly do not think that there's much, if any, empathy in the Harry Potter books or in the wizarding world. Hermione's an exception, but then, she's from a normal Muggle family. There's no concern anywhere- especially in the Weasley family- for how someone feels. I think this is intentional and necessary. After all, it's an archaic, traditional, enclosed culture on the brink of war. Molly's not reading books about how to make her children well-adjusted and happy. It does not occur to her to be concerned about their emotional well-being. She's concerned with making sure they are fed, dressed, presentable and respectable in society, and educated. Oh, and alive. Is it unfair? Of course. Is she imposing her own beliefs of the ideal child on all of her children? Indubitably. Is it bad parenting? One could indeed argue so. But it's really all she knows, and I think it's all the wizarding world knows. The whole society is very stiff upper lip, grin and bear it. Think of Neville's grandmother- or, for that matter, of him being dropped out of a window as a child. Think of the casual way deaths and injuries are mentioned and dealt with. Think of the fact that Cho spent most of her sixth year crying and was afraid of being kicked off of the Quidditch team because of it. The whole series is engineered to be sort of- oh, we're sorry you accidentally got magicked to the Sahara for nine days/messed up a potion and got covered in unsightly and painful boils/lost your memory in an unfortunate incident, but, well, we'll turn you right soon and no need to speak of it again!

Why are the books this way? I think it's the simplest reason- it's funny. It's exaggerated, and meant for kids to read and to think- why, how funny, sometimes apparition goes wrong and people lose half of themselves! So this whole Weasley thing, which I appear to have left behind :\ is just another example of the whole HP mindset. Of course the Weasleys are fucked up. They're a microcosm of a whole fucked-up culture. For me, reading HP means accepting that everything is so completely crazy- after all, if I can make the leap of faith necessary to believe in apparition and floo-ing and broomsticks and all the rest of it, I have to be able to accept that there are rampant amounts of abuse, terror and general mayhem occuring. It's...someone else has said this, but I forget who- it's a caricature. It's a totally different world.

In conclusion, I love the Weasleys and this comment is way too long :D

[archon-mentha.livejournal.com]

I probably shouldn't be posting, because I'm too tired to be truly coherent.

It's been on my mind lately, when I read people's reasons for disliking one character or another... All of JKR's good main characters have (at the very least) one solid flaw. Lupin is too concerned about being liked; Arthur is a hypocrite; Snape refuses to let go of the past; the twins are cruel.

Molly's main flaw, as you pointed out, is she has an idea in her head of the way things are supposed to be, and can't bear to have that challenged. Her negative behavior is defensive.

The impact of her actions and attitude on her children would very much depend on the child. The children who were more like her (and Percy springs to mind here) would probably find it comforting to grow up in an environment with a strict set of absolutes. (Percy may have rejected the absolutes he grew up with, but he seems to have adopted his own set in their place.)

I've always had mixed feelings about Molly. She's not the character I'd choose to have as a friend - but there are a lot of people out there like her, and she does mean well. In the end, her flaws just don't bother me as much as others do - but it's easy to see how they could be that irritating.

Er - anyway, here via d_s, but have been enjoying your posts and comments - would you mind if I friended you?

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

It's been on my mind lately, when I read people's reasons for disliking one character or another. All of JKR's good main characters have (at the very least) one solid flaw.

Yeah, I discussed my personal preferences a few weeks ago. I love Rowling's characters because they are flawed; I am a great fan of Remus, Sirius and Snape, who are as messed up as it gets. I also like Hagrid, who is very much hated in fandom.

With Molly, it's not the fact that she isn't perfect that puts me off. It's the quality of her flaws rather than the quantity. I understand her motives, but she annoys the hell out of me. I am not surprised that there are people who like Molly; it's just that for reasons stated above, I'm not one of them.

I always imagined Percy to have a difficult stand in the family. His mother is the only one who supports him in his ambitions, and, from the way she treats Ron in the prefect badge scene, it is quite possible that she supports Percy in his achievements, but not in case of failures. He's a middle child, which makes him too young to share any fun activities with Bill and Charlie, but old enough to take care of his younger siblings. I wonder whether his obsession with rules is some sort of compensation; it's the only way to get some attention and affection.

would you mind if I friended you?

Of course not. Go ahead :-)

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

(Here via the DS)
You make a lot of good points. I personally have a love/hate relationship with Molly. On the one hand, Harry has never really had a mother figure, and she truly does mean well. She's always been kind to Harry, and he needed that kind of adult affection considering the way he was raised. The way she and Bill came to see him for the tri-wizard tournament was very sweet and touching. On the other hand, the way she believed the newspaper and magazine articles about Hermione being a tart, knowing full well that Rita Skeeter was a nasty bitch...

I, too, was very angry with her for being petty and cruel to Sirius in OotP. And for being smothering and condescending and far too overprotective (in PoA and OotP. I know she means well, and she's truly trying to protect those she loves, but she obviously doesn't always go about it the right way. The scene where she encounters the boggart, and it takes the shape of those she loves dead on the floor before her made me realize that much of her overprotectiveness in OotP is based on this fear, so I was able to forgive her a bit more, even when I wanted to smack her upside the head.

It's a no-win situation really. I mean, my parents say and do things that drive me up the wall, and I just "yes" them to death and do what I want anyway. Kind of like Bill and the twins. And even Ginny, too. Granted, I'm 37 now, but I did it when I was 17 as well. The difference then was, living with them, I couldn't get away with as much as I could once I moved out.

I'm actually reserving judgment on Molly, and most of the characters, including Dumbledore, until book 7 is published. I like Harry isn't perfect, and that not even Dumbledore is infallible, and I find myself constantly debating with myself over the old Star Trek philosophy regarding the whole "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one - i.e. Harry)" issue, and I'm looking forward to more character development in the two final books.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

she truly does mean well

Absolutely. I know that Molly means well and cares a lot and wants to protect her family at all costs. But the way she goes on about it irritates me to no end. It is sad, really, I could sympathise with her situation a lot if she wasn't such an annoying person.

I just "yes" them to death and do what I want anyway

Oh yes, so do I. And you are right, this is pretty much what Bill does, too. But I think that Bill had better chances to be left alone than his younger siblings, because being the eldest he was most likely considered old enough to take care for himself (and his younger brothers) at an early age. Plus, he had achieved academic success, which surely greatly pleased Molly. Bill obviously possesed that sort of ambition which Molly approves - being Headboy and receiving a dozen or so OWLs.

The situations of the twins, Ron and Ginny are more difficult. Fred and George's ambitions are pushed harshly aside by their mother, Ron tries very hard to live up to her expectations, and Ginny has to sneak around to get what she wants. Not that there is anything wrong with sneaking around, but it shouln't become the default state in a parent-child relationship. I don't get the impression that Ginny gets a lot of support from her parents, even in the context of the tough wizarding world.

I'm actually reserving judgment on Molly

I'm passing no moral judgement on her. This is not so much about what makes Molly a negative character, but more about my personal relationship to her.

As to Dumbledore, I find him a very difficult character. Throughout the first four books, I saw him merely as the exposition fairy and the vox ex machina. In OotP, he was supposed to turn into a fully-developed, three-dimensional character, but it didn't work for me. For me, Dumbledore outlived his literary purpose.

[thefreshchuff.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed your essay, and wish that I had something half way intelligent to add to it, but it's about 4 o'clock in the morning over here. All I will say is that you've made some incredibly interesting points and I really agree with you.
During the first four books my feelings for Molly were pretty lukewarm. I thought she was annoying, but my dislike for her wasn't very strong. But as soon as OotP came around, and Molly said that to Sirius.. I mean, it was such an unnecessary low blow, and like you said, she only said it to hurt Sirius as much as possible. I don't know, Molly seems annoying and almost childish in her views that her children (and Harry) will always be children, must always be sheltered from everything and just kept in the dark about anything important. I just don't like Molly as person and am damn glad I don't have her for a mom!
Well, I'm out of here, I dearly need to go to bed. G'night!

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Thanks for stopping by, even though it was late ;-)

I sort of understand that mothers always view their children as children; only the other day my boss, who's in her late 30s, mentioned that her mother always asks her whether she's got a handkerchief on her when she leaves the house and that it drives her insane. My mother is also very protective and caring, but she realises what she's doing and has the ability to reflect on her attitude towards her children, which is something that I absolutely don't see in Molly. She is unable to communicate with her children in a way they understand and in a way that makes them think. I don't think she's a bad person, and I would sympathise with her situation if she wasn't so damn annoying.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

You know - I agree with almost all the things you said. And that said, I still like Molly Weasley. This, and all the other Weasley essays have made my head spin - but I'll be thinking about this.

In OotP we also learn via Molly that Sirius thinks he's got his best friend back in Harry. I find this a bit rich coming from a woman who is unable to realise that her own children are all individuals and who tries to mould them according to her concept of the "perfect child" rather than supporting them in who they are.

And yet, she is right in a way. It's unfortunate, and ironic.

Swatkat

[sidial.livejournal.com]

I can't help but be thankful that Molly considers Harry a part of her family. He needs that. However, I can't stand the fact that she can't accept that, for his very survival, he needs to know things that aren't Very Happy Things.

On the whole, I disagree with Molly's behavior. She reminds me a lot of my mother, and you can be sure that, when us kids didn't/don't agree with her, we just say "Yes, mother", wait ten minutes, and go do it anyhow. I also disagree with what she says in regards to Sirius... I don't think Sirius knows Harry well enough to know his actual personality, and Molly does seem to do her best to prevent them from getting to know each other well. Even Remus has more exposure to Harry. But I know a lot of adults who, knowing only my parents, some how expected me to be very similar to one of them, and were shocked when I wasn't. So, Sirius is trying to figure out who Harry really is, and the only "guiding example" he has is James and Lily, and Remus who probably has told Sirius how much like James Harry is. But when she said that to him ... I really expected Sirius to blow completely up, instead of only somewhat. (I would've reacted ... violently.)

Molly means well. Dumbledore means well. The adults who mean the best fall into the very nice title I found in a fanfic, for Dumbledore of They-Who-Doth-Not-Tellth-Harry-Potter-Things. I can't forgive her behavior towards Sirius, and can't but sympathize with her children, who are being smothered. But I can't hate her, either, because she does care about Harry, even if she's going about it all the wrong way.

And I keep hoping that both Molly and Dumbledore manage to redeem themselves in Harry's eyes, because he needs whatever family he can get.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

To a degree, I am glad that Molly has adopted Harry. He doesn't suffer under her treatment, after all. But I wonder what it's like for Ron, witnesses how much more understanding his mother shows his best friend than himself.

I think all kids sneak around and do things behind their parents back. With the Weasleys, I get the impression that they completely disregard anything their mother says as worthy listening to. They never stop to think that what they're doing is wrong (only to do it nevertheless, because this is what children do); they only stop to think how likely it is getting caught.

Sirius is trying to figure out who Harry really is, and the only "guiding example" he has is James and Lily, and Remus who probably has told Sirius how much like James Harry is

I like Sirius. And while Sirius has undoubtedly Issues, I don't think that confusing Harry with James is one of them. Sirius is looking for resemblances between Harry and James, but so is everybody else, including the level-headed Minerva McGonagall. Molly implies that Sirius thinks Harry is the reincarnation of James. I am convinced that Sirius makes the distiction between Harry and James; he dotes on Harry and loves Harry because he is James's son and tries to raise him the way James would, but he does not think that Harry is James.

We had this discussion over at pauraque's LJ some time ago, and caesia390 made some excellent points
here.

My deep dislike for Molly is based on her way of expressing her concern and her love. I know she means well, but on a purely personal level, she makes my skin crawl. There are plenty of reasons to like her, but I can't get past the shouting and the belittling and the prejudices.

[laurificus.livejournal.com]

Here via daily_Snitch.

Mostly I agree with you about everything - especially where Sirius and Fred and George are concerned - but I'd argue that CoS doesn't show her in a particularly bad light. I mean, yes, she sends the howler, but that's a wizarding thing to do, you know? All the kids seem to know what it is, which means Molly isn't alone in using it as a form of punishment, so, while I personally wouldn't want to be admitting to the world (and some of my enemy's children, come to that) that my husband was being investigated, in the context of the wizarding world, I don't think it's an unusual thing to do.

Equally, by the time she's sent it, she knows perfectly well that Ron hasn't been hurt, and I think that could quite easily simply make her more angry. Had Ron really been injured, I don't think that would have been the reaction she would have given -- In
GoF, she's genuinely upset that she's shouted at Fred and George before the Quidditch cup -- but when he's fine, she's merely mightily pissed off at the damage he's done, which isn't unreasonable.

As for Harry: he's not her son, and I think that necessitates the difference in treatment. Ignoring Harry when he first comes to stay would have been the wrong thing to do, because it would have made him feel unwelcome, and also because it *wasn't* his fault. He didn't ask them to come, didn't even know they were coming, and once they were there, he had little choice but to see the whole thing through.

The rest though I think is spot on. The Sirius thing made it fairly obvious to me how low she could go, but even before that we see how she treats Hermione in GoF. I mean, giving her that tiny chocolate egg on the basis of a story she read from a clearly untrustworthy source was hardly her shining moment.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I realise that Howlers are normal in the wizarding world (and, on a side note, a brilliant invention of Rowling's; there is hardly anything that teenagers find more embarrassing than being told off by their parents in front of all their peers, she's got the psychology spot-on) and that Molly only acts according to the rules. If it were only this one Howler, I would let it pass. But the Howler is symptomatic for her attitude. I really wonder that she doesn't send Howlers more often - they are the embodiment of her favourite communication means: shouting.

The same goes for her treatment of Harry in CoS. It wasn't his fault, sure. But it is one of many instances where she shows quite clearly that she prefers Harry to Ron. Ron is always shunted into the background, told off, shouted at (though not as much as Fred and George), while she never tells Harry off. Of course, Harry is the poor orphaned boy, but by giving him the special treatment, she only emphasises how much of an orphaned boy he is and how much he is to be pitied. Molly's reaction is ridiculously exaggerated in both respects: Ron is always blamed, Harry never. She needs to make it a bit more balanced.

The Hermione incident as well as the encounter with the werewolf at St. Mungo's show clearly how much of a hypocrite she is, which, of course, doesn't make me like her any better.

[sookail.livejournal.com]

Here via daily_snitch.

And just one thing to say: I couldn`t agree more. The mere thought of having a mother like that in RL makes my flesh creep, especially b/c my grandmother is a fine example of such - and failed - parenting. Ew. It`s not nice when you`re old, "only wanted the best", and your own children are tired of and hate you.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

"Only want your best" and "I'm doing it for the children" are two of the most horrible excuses of parents. Molly's method of parenting is more than annyoing, and it's also quite inefficient, seeing as she's unable to bring her point across.

[tcregan.livejournal.com]

I got here from sookail's journal and I have to say that I agree with a lot of things you say.

if her attack on Arthur after he got stitched at St. Mungo's is any indication.

More than anything else, this made me so angry. The part in the book, not your comment on it. Arthur is my favorite character so yes, I'm biased towards him. However, you don't call your husband stupid for trying out new things. Molly is too set in her ways and if she was a Muggle, she would still be washing dishes by hand instead of using a dishwasher (best analogy I could come up with at the moment).

It's true what was said about children who are yelled at and belittled verbally turn out worse than those who are beaten, and some parents (I've experienced this first hand) are always quick to say "Well, at least I never beat you!" Molly strikes me as one of these types.

Now, speaking as a mother, I completely respect your supermarket argument. I've always found the most effective way of getting my son to behave is by speaking quietly but firmly.

In all, this is a very good, very well thought out essay and now I have to go read all the links you posted in it.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I like Arthur, too, and I feel very sorry for him (though he seems to be getting on with her all right). It's not only that she tells him off for trying new things; she does so on top of her voice and in front of witnesses. It grates on my nerves so much, because I've got a deep dislike for public exposure such as this. If anything, she should have addressed this issue in private. Also, for someone supposedly Muggle-friendly, she gets rather wound-up about Muggle technology. She is one of those people who are oh so open-minded, travelling to foreign countries to watch the natives live in wooden huts, but who wouldn't dream of letting an African into their neat middle-class flat.

I always find it most effective to speak quietly to children, and I know this is what worked for me. I find it most effective to speak quietly with adults, too. Shouting never serves to bring an argument across.

I'm glad you liked it. Thank you for reading and commenting :-)

[tcregan.livejournal.com]

I am really sorry to post twice but I had to add this: I'd love to hear what you have to say about Molly's wife skills now that you've ripped into her motherhood skills.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Right. I'm not making any promises, but I'll do my best. I've never given Molly's relationship with Arthur so much thought, probably because we see her from Harry's PoV and she is mainly a mother in his eyes. But it'd be interesting to analyse their relationship for sure. I'm sure someone somewhere has posted essays on this matter. *makes mental note to look for Molly/Arthur essays*

Word!

[jazzypom.livejournal.com]

Sirius merely stated that Harry's got him, which is an undeniable fact - it doesn't serve to bring a point across and it is merely designed to hurt Sirius as much as possible. Which shows what Molly's discussion tactics is all about: If running out of arguments, land as low a blow as possible.

Word. Molly is a vulgar woman. She's very holier than thou, and reminds me of one of these mothers who thinks just because she has a womb, and pops children out of her ____ she thinks she's the be all and end all.

I must admit, that her attitude towards Sirius Black cemented my hate for the character, but there were little things that made me question her judgement. Her whole attitude towards Hermione in GoF for example. I mean, Molly must have known what sort of character Hermione was, but to believe a newspaper article about this girl? I was too through by then. Her attitude towards Fred and George, and Ron really got to me at times.

Man, you wrote the essay that I so wanted to get around to doing. *Sigh* I shan't be writing Molly now...

Re: Word!

[grrliz.livejournal.com]

Her whole attitude towards Hermione in GoF for example. I mean, Molly must have known what sort of character Hermione was, but to believe a newspaper article about this girl?
YES OMG. What is wrong with this woman? It's not like she doesn't know Hermione, or rather, she may not know the girl very well, but she has spent time with her and it's a bit ridiculous to let a silly newspaper article make her do a complete 180° turn on her approach to Hermione. Honestly, influenced by public opinion much? Someone is far too concerned about how things look.