Molly, and why I dislike her
Mar. 18th, 2005 07:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
donnaimmaculataAll this nightmare scenario-related talk about Molly and my dislike of her, in combination with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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. Ascamillabloom 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:32 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:40 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 11:04 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 11:27 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 11:33 am (UTC)This is a wonderful essay. As a mother, I'm not above yelling and screaming, but I'm well aware that it's a last resort evern (crossing the street without looking comes to mind). Molly seems to see her children as infants that can be coaxed into doing what she wants. She hasn't learned that they are adults with their own personalities.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 11:44 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 12:49 pm (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 01:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 01:54 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 03:02 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 06:51 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 07:17 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 07:32 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 07:43 pm (UTC)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...
Yes
Date: 2005-03-18 08:03 pm (UTC)Here from d_s
Date: 2005-03-18 08:05 pm (UTC)Yes, but when does this happen? Well after students have chosen (what could turn out to be the wrong) electives, and not too far in advance of the OWLs that may determine their career paths (potentially depriving them of the opportunity to buckle down and study in those crucial subjects). The only guidance Harry got before that point was some vague advice from Percy.
OT
Date: 2005-03-18 08:05 pm (UTC)Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 08:20 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 08:47 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:03 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:04 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:05 pm (UTC)