Posted on 07/24/2007 11:20:15 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
One of the most surprising scenes in the new Harry Potter book occurs in the chapter "The Bribe" (pages 210-215)--a scene which reflects our sharply anti-father political environment. (As an aside, even though J.K. Rowling is an avowed single mother advocate, in the Harry Potter series she mercifully spares us any nonsense on the glories of single motherhood.)
The scene involves Harry and Lupin (pictured, with Harry), a former teacher at the school who is also a werewolf. Lupin is married to Tonks, and Tonks is pregnant with their child. Lord Voldemort (the devil in the Harry Potter series) has risen and is taking over the Wizarding World, slaughtering all who resist, as well as many innocents. All those in the Wizarding World who don't have the proper bloodlines are being rounded up and destroyed.
Harry and his two faithful friends, Hermione and Ron, are holed up in his godfather's abandoned house, planning their next move. Dumbledore, the deceased school headmaster, has assigned Harry a crucial task--he needs to destroy Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes. The Horcruxes encase parts of Voldemort's soul, and as long as they survive, Voldemort cannot be killed. Given the other casualties (Sirius Black, Mad-Eye Moody, Dumbledore, etc.) and defections to Voldemort, Lupin is one of the very few able, adult wizards available to help Harry.
Lupin has placed Tonks in a safe house under her parents' protection, and has gone to Harry to offer his assistance with the project. Harry instead berates him for "abandoning" Tonks, and calls him a "coward"--language which could've been taken straight out of the mouths of father-bashing feminists and child support enforcement officials. Shamed, Lupin returns to Tonks and stays in the safe house with her, later gaining Harry's (and apparently Rowling's) approval.
This is absurd. Voldemort is winning, and there are few experienced Wizards left to resist him. If Harry does not succeed in the mission to which the late Dumbledore has assigned him, Voldemort will reign supreme, resulting in the deaths of millions. Lupin volunteers to put his life on the line to help Harry, and is instead supposed to stay holed-up with Tonks while the fate of their world hangs in the balance. For offering to help Harry, he's a "coward"?
Harry successfully shames him into returning to Tonks, and Lupin (more or less) sits things out there while the decisive struggle against Voldemort and his forces is being waged.
In addition to being reminiscent of standard modern father-bashing, the scene also brings to mind the famous incident involving then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2000, around the birth of his child. His wife, Cherie Blair, publicly shamed her husband into taking paternity leave to help her care for their baby.
Now, I'm a long-time supporter of dads as primary caregivers, and I recommend it whenever possible. I was a stay-at-home dad for the first three years of my daughter's life (from the time she was six weeks old), and the time we spent together then was absolutely the greatest experience of my life. But Tony Blair had more important things to do--he had a country of 60 million people to run, and countless people depending on him. I think it's unfortunate that it wasn't politically possible for him to say he had more important things to do than take paternity leave.
Blair took a maternity leave? LOL, what a leftie thing to do. He could set his own work hours and spend extra time at home with them. Silly.
I'm only slightly ashamed to admit that I bawled my eyes out when I read that part. I though about it being a circle, Harry being little Teddy's godfather an all. =)
Wasn’t orphaned, though, his maternal gradmother survived.
Thus uniting the Weasley and Lupins. =)I was surprised that Ron and Hermione only had Hugo and Rose. They need at least 5 more kids to be Weasleys. =)
This misses the whole point of the scene. Lupin wasn’t “leaving his wife behind and trying to help Harry”, he was running away from his responsibilities. He didn’t want to be a father, mostly because he was a werewolf and feeling guilty about fathering a child who might be a werewolf too. Harry, who grew up parentless, craving parental love, could never have let someone else abandon their child.
Harry recognized that Lupin was trying to run away. When he showed up at the end to help with the ultimate battle, having accepted his parental responsibilities, Harry welcomed his help.
Did you notice that they all must have waited some years to marry and start families? Looks like Rowling, who was a single mother, was set on two parents raising children as the ideal.
People read this stuff?
I saw the first Harry Potter film - it was ok, but didn’t sell me on the franchise. I’ve missed all the sequels. Well, I didn’t miss them - I had no intention of seeing them. Not that they are bad, it’s just that I don’t find it compelling.
Should have read the books, not watched a movie. The books were much better, not that the movies were so bad.
Indeed I did. Harry was 17, so 19 years later makes him 36. He’s sending Albus Severus off to Hogwarts, and his older brother James was messing with him. So we know James is at least 12, that makes Harry 24 and Ginny 23 when they have him. So they were a little younger when they were married. I think that’s a good time for marriage. I may be biased though, as I was married at 23.
I mostly read nonfiction, I admit. Not a big modern fiction reader. The first movie was ok, just nothing special. Didn’t make me want to come back for more.
Ah, but the movie is never as good as the book.
I can't blame you for that, the first movie was based off the first book, which was very kid friendly. I find it interesting that you like non-fiction. I can't stand the stuff.
The movie is seldom as good as the book, but there are exceptions.
I think the original Planet of the Apes film is much better than Pierre Boulle’s book. That comes immediately to mind.
Haven’t read the book in a couple of decades, though. As a general principle, the book is usually far more textured and satisfying than movie incarnations.
I like nonfiction - biographies and memoirs of people I am interested in. I have a bias that a personality has to be on the far side of age 60 or so to write a autobio or memoir, just because I think perspective is essential in those formats, and relative youth doesn’t lend to that kind of wisdom.
I like history and investigative accounts. Books on recent events are fascinating to me, also. Den of Thieves, though not that recent at all (15+ years old now?) is a good example of the kind of investigative accounts I like, and essential to understanding those events and personalities..
I like politics and analysis, also, like Londonistan and America Alone, stuff like that. I like sports accounts, also, like The Bronx Zoo
I scan the new fiction titles now and then and none of them make me want to pick one up. The fiction I do read tends to be older stuff, I admit. But it’s nonfiction 9-1 for me.
Sheesh, what’s next... Harry Potter as an analogy for hard water stains on tub and tile?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.