Missing Parents and Grandparents, Coincidence or Commentary? |
 Sep 24 2009, 03:16 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Stocking Snitches at Quality Quidditch Supplies Posts: 672 Joined: 6:25am December 9, 2007 Location: Canada  |
QUOTE(JohannMdlAmerica @ Sep 20 2009, 12:12 PM)  Laura, I'm of two minds. One one hand, we actually see Lilys parents once, at Kings' Cross, the day she goes to school for the first time in 1972 or 3 or so (my God, I was a HS 10th/11th grader then)... that they are out of the story, considering Riddle's first attempt at wizarding hegemony, can mean they were killed early on. OTOH, as you mentioned, they aren't vital to the plot or theme, and they're not written in. Thank you, Betty Bivins (my 10th grade English Lit teacher)... fiction is the heart of life, it is not a slice of life. When I wrote, "Quite frankly, I think that some characters were not put in the series because they were not directly relevant to the story. They would neither further the plot nor inform us further in any important way about the characters who are relevant. Thus, they were left offstage, as it were.", I was referring to other people's grandparents. Like Ron's grandparents, or Luna's grandparents, or Hermoine's grandparents, etc. Heck, since wizards and witches live so long, maybe even one or both of Snape's grandparents on his mother's side would still be alive in the 1990s. Harry's case was different. It was vital to the story that Harry did not have any living grandparents; that both Lily and James' parents were dead by Oct. 31, 1981. It was vital to the whole HP series that Petunia be Harry's only living blood relative. As we know. ((AD): "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." - PS, Chapter One, p.15, Raincoast) Had either the Evan's-side grandmother or grandfather, or the Potter's-side grandmother or grandfather been alive on Oct. 31, 1981, baby Harry would not have been placed with the Dursleys. (And a big part of this whole story would have been radically different. (grin) ) I hope you don't mind me mentioning, Johann, but we learn in DH that Lily Evans was born in January of 1960. Which means she would have entered Hogwarts on Sept. 1, 1971. Just a small point. (smile) "Fiction is the heart of life ... not a slice of life." Amen to that! (Big smile) Laura -------------------- |
 |
 
 
|
|
Sep 24 2009, 07:52 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Spellotaping Monster Books of Monsters Posts: 2,494 Joined: 9:26am July 24, 2007 Location: I'm either in the Muggle Underground Forum or at the Hogwarts Express Roundhouse  |
Tonight's Irony, Laura:
Miss Bivins hammered that quote into my mind throughout the year Lily was a first year at Hogwarts  I agree with you, having Harry's blood family, but for Petunia, dead on Halloween/All Saints Day 1981 is essential to the story. With that given, I think we're justified in asking for some deeper backstory on them. BTW, I went to the JKR website last night... sorta dusty there, not quite as though it was supposed to have the furniture covered for the winter, but it didn't happen... I get the impression the the Weasleys are older to begin with... by the time you back off Ginny--->Ron (2 years), Ron--->twins(2 years), Twins--->Percy (two years), let alone Charlie and Bill, well, I think they are in their mid-40s to mid-50s at the beginning of canon. That's a reasonable age for grandparents to be leaving this life, and thus logical they be written out. In Hermione's case, I think they are simply not needed to the story. Doctors Granger are at sufficient risk by themselves. I'll conclude this ramble, though, with a fan-fic that needs writing: "Asking for Hermione's Hand"... ;) -------------------- The last enemy to be destroyed is death-- First Corinthians, Chapter 15, Verse 26 The epitaph of James and Lily Potter |
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 10:03 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Ollivander's Apprentice Posts: 2,176 Joined: 7:39pm March 11, 2007 Location: wandering in the Forbidden Forest, listening for the Phoenix song   |
QUOTE(SeveraSphyrna @ Sep 8 2009, 10:36 PM) Besides Sirius (if we even count Mrs. Black's portrait as a "parent"), it seems that none of the important 30 to 40-something characters have parents. Their parents are either dead, presumed dead, or missing from the story (outside of recollections about childhood, e.g. Snape and Petunia). And aside from Neville (whose grandmother and late grandfather functioned as guardians), it seems that none of the important younger characters have grandparents (again, dead, presumed dead, or missing from the story). Does this lacking bother you? If so, why? If not, why not? Do you think it's a coincidence or was it planned? Why? What does this say about families, as represented in the series? What does this say about familial legacy, as represented in the series? What does this say about maturity (or lack thereof), particularly with reference to the men in the series (since most of the 30-40 somethings are men)? What an awesome thread, Severa Sphyrna! And yeah, I've noticed this....and it bothers me. You're dead on. If we look at most of the major adult characters in the series who form a type of "guard" around Harry, they are singularly without extended family at the parental level or higher. It's quite a glaring omission, really. When we look at who protects Harry in the Order -- Remus, Severus, Sirius, Hagrid, the Weasleys -- the line stops with them. They have no parents, no extended family, and they are all singletons acting on their own. One explanation I've come up with is that, simply, the wizarding world is a violent place, or at least a very deadly place.  The First Wizarding War presumably brought quite a faction of society to an early grave, and the losses of that war go on to influence the extreme reluctance of the current generation to admit that Voldemort was back. And those who didn't die in the war appear to have died of natural causes at an early age (or at least they left behind children who have only just reached adulthood). They say that our parents form a natural barricade between death and ourselves, and it is only when they are gone that we face Death directly. Perhaps these "adult orphan" characters all bear a type of testimony to the violence of the wizarding world -- and the harsh reality that magic does not appear to extend life or prevent tragedy? And yes, it's psychologically interesting that the adults around Harry have no such parental barrier to rely upon. Sirius, Remus, Severus, and Hagrid are all alone, just like Harry. I find it interesting that almost all of the men surrounding Harry are orphans -- and that none of them but Remus has a "significant other" in their lives. (And let's face it: Remus makes rather a hash out of that anyway. He is unable to commit to his wife and unborn child, and yearns to accompany the trio on one last bout of Marauder adventure and glory). Certainly Remus, Severus, and Sirius have some arrested development which is striking. These men also all share a certain familiarity with danger and live with a brio mostly seen with the unencumbered. But in any regard, their "adult orphan" status is tragic -- and certainly lonely. Perhaps they all were knowingly created without parents to account to so that they could more readily identify with Harry's solitary state, and they are also free to take more of an active role in Harry's life? Also, from a literary perspective, none of these characters have to take family considerations into account when they take action or make their choices. I'm not saying that family connections rigidly control our actions -- but they are oftentimes prime considerations. Almost no one surrounding Harry has to worry about extended family, parents, or filial responsibilities. They are all lone agents, free to act for themselves. And this does, admittedly, give the characters quite a bit of leeway in their decision-making process. (Actually, the only character we see torn and in agony over family considerations is Molly -- and she's worried about those coming after her -- her children. The Prewett parents are gone, as are her brothers. ) There's no web of family connectedness which acts as a check upon the characters' impulses. Parents can often put the brakes on reckless behavior -- and these male characters have no brakes on them whatsoever. These guys all lack someone with life experience, sound advice, or who act as mature role models. And it shows.  We see virtually no grandfathers in the series that I can think of. (Neville had one, but we really only learn that Neville saw him die). Sadly, the few matriarchal images we have --Augusta and Andromeda -- suffer terrible losses. They are women who have lost almost everyone they love, and they stand as guardians over children who have lost everything themselves. These women are truly tragic figures. The bottom line I walk away with this that family ties and indeed mere familial presence is ephemeral in the wizarding world. Love certainly exists, and the Weasleys are outstanding examples of familial love, as are the Potters. But we don't ever really see characters having large, multi-generational families. We don't see intricate family connections and intergenerational interactions. Parental wisdom, parental love, and responsibilities to parents are thin on the ground in the series. The characters know quite a bit of freedom, but it's a marred freedom. As for family legacy question, we really only see that in the more established wizarding families. We find only a few, mostly pureblood families (like the Blacks), who actually been able to found a dynasty over time. Since no one seems to live a long and healthy life in the wizarding world, these families have to rely on sheer numbers of family members and lots of time. Only the largest and oldest wizarding families have the capability of leaving behind a family legacy. And that's terribly sad as well. This post has been edited by fidelia: Oct 9 2009, 11:15 PM --------------------  |
|
|
|
|
Oct 15 2009, 10:11 AM
Post
#14
|
|
Grammar Posse Posts: 2,500 Joined: 3:59pm May 15, 2008 Location: Sunny Phoenix, Arizona("It's a Dry Heat!") |
Very interesting discussion here, about the lack of grandparents in the Harry Potter saga.
I have to admit, that I had wondered about the fact that in Harry's family, he is lacking grandparents on both sides. Although this would have been normal in the 1800's or even early 1900's, by the time that this story takes place, it's unusual for a child to be born with no grandparents. In fact, many birth announcements list great-grandparents as well. While it is a distinct possibility that James' parents could have died in the first wizarding world, we aren't given information that that was the case, and with the Evans' family, it's even more obscure. When we look at the Dursleys,it's clear that Petunia and Vernon would probably be in the age range from 20--40, which is not old enough to mean that Petunia's parents would have been deceased. Yet when she speaks of them, it's as though they had been dead for some time, which might mean that they expired, either just before Lily graduated from Hogwarts, or right afterwards. So, this clearly is a plot device, since JKR needed for Harry to be an orphan. However, when we look at all of those involved in the story, it's clear there's a glaring lack of grandparents. Old Augusta Longbottom is the only one we view, with Andromeda Tonks becoming a grandmother only at the very end of the story, and we certainly never view her in her role as grandmother to Teddy. I think fidelia has an interesting point about the violence that has been working havoc amongst the wizarding world: One explanation I've come up with is that, simply, the wizarding world is a violent place, or at least a very deadly place. The First Wizarding War presumably brought quite a faction of society to an early grave, and the losses of that war go on to influence the extreme reluctance of the current generation to admit that Voldemort was back. And those who didn't die in the war appear to have died of natural causes at an early age (or at least they left behind children who have only just reached adulthood). They say that our parents form a natural barricade between death and ourselves, and it is only when they are gone that we face Death directly. Perhaps these "adult orphan" characters all bear a type of testimony to the violence of the wizarding world -- and the harsh reality that magic does not appear to extend life or prevent tragedy? Even with the war presenting a logical reason for SOME of the lack of older witches and wizards, it does not quite explain why there is such a dearth of older wizards within family structures. Are we to connect the single state of wizards with a longer life expectancy, then? At Hogwarts, for example, we know that Dumbledore is the elder headmaster, and the "much younger" McGonagall is described as being in her 70's. It appears that if one is a teacher at a magic school like Hogwarts, then one might have a longer life expectancy, but if one is an ordinary witch or wizard, who has children, one' s life span will be fairly short. Not much of a selling point for being a member of the wizarding community, is it? Furthermore, it seems to be consistent on both sides of the war--we do not see any grandparents on the Black or Malfoy family, either. In addition, the most prominent Dark Wizard murdered his own muggle grandparents and father, thus making himself an orphan. It seems clear then that older witches and wizards are superfluous to the HP story--they are not needed, and not wanted. This post has been edited by Fricka: Oct 15 2009, 10:12 AM --------------------  __________ Phoenix avatar from ofenjen; AZ Raven siggy from Victoria Page |
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2009, 01:14 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Spellotaping Monster Books of Monsters Posts: 2,494 Joined: 9:26am July 24, 2007 Location: I'm either in the Muggle Underground Forum or at the Hogwarts Express Roundhouse |
QUOTE(fidelia @ Oct 9 2009, 10:03 PM) What an awesome thread, Severa Sphyrna! Also, from a literary perspective, none of these characters have to take family considerations into account when they take action or make their choices. I'm not saying that family connections rigidly control our actions -- but they are oftentimes prime considerations. Almost no one surrounding Harry has to worry about extended family, parents, or filial responsibilities. They are all lone agents, free to act for themselves. And this does, admittedly, give the characters quite a bit of leeway in their decision-making process. (Actually, the only character we see torn and in agony over family considerations is Molly -- and she's worried about those coming after her -- her children. The Prewett parents are gone, as are her brothers. ) There's no web of family connectedness which acts as a check upon the characters' impulses. Parents can often put the brakes on reckless behavior -- and these male characters have no brakes on them whatsoever. These guys all lack someone with life experience, sound advice, or who act as mature role models. And it shows. Actually, I think we need to look at this harder. Harry's surrogate family in the Wizarding world, the Weasleys, is moderately well developed, to include Auntie Muriel. Certainly Molly and Fleur, and to a lesser degree Arthur, are looking to second and 3d order effects of Harry's actions. Ditto the Grangers, who we see in person in COS and we see Hermione accounting for them in her actions in DH. If we were to parse canon for family relationships, I think we'd see lots at the parental level, and still some at the grand-parental or great-aunt/uncle level. Yes, I'll gladly concede Harry is an orphan indeed, and in effect, so is Sirius. We just don't know the whats, whys and wherefores here, beyond the plot need of JKR to have Harry be an orphan. I suspect, though, that the First Wizarding War was rather more lethal than Rowling lets us onto. How else do you explain the disappearance of the Black parents, leaving Sirius and his cousins as the last generation (and only Narcissa surviving the series?)? I hope this ramble makes some sense... -------------------- The last enemy to be destroyed is death-- First Corinthians, Chapter 15, Verse 26 The epitaph of James and Lily Potter |
|
|
|
|
Oct 17 2009, 08:08 PM
Post
#16
|
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher Posts: 195 Joined: 11:46pm June 12, 2009 |
QUOTE(fidelia @ Oct 9 2009, 10:03 PM) What an awesome thread, Severa Sphyrna! And yeah, I've noticed this....and it bothers me. You're dead on. If we look at most of the major adult characters in the series who form a type of "guard" around Harry, they are singularly without extended family at the parental level or higher. It's quite a glaring omission, really. When we look at who protects Harry in the Order -- Remus, Severus, Sirius, Hagrid, the Weasleys -- the line stops with them. They have no parents, no extended family, and they are all singletons acting on their own. One explanation I've come up with is that, simply, the wizarding world is a violent place, or at least a very deadly place. The First Wizarding War presumably brought quite a faction of society to an early grave, and the losses of that war go on to influence the extreme reluctance of the current generation to admit that Voldemort was back. And those who didn't die in the war appear to have died of natural causes at an early age (or at least they left behind children who have only just reached adulthood). They say that our parents form a natural barricade between death and ourselves, and it is only when they are gone that we face Death directly. Perhaps these "adult orphan" characters all bear a type of testimony to the violence of the wizarding world -- and the harsh reality that magic does not appear to extend life or prevent tragedy?Thanks Fidelia. Sorry I've been away. After dealing with umpteen emails and reading a screen at work, I just find it hard to sit on the computer once I get home...but I digress... Just to be clear, I've thought of that too, as well as the previous contentions that they're just not that important (let's face it, there are enough characters to keep track of without adding a bunch of senior citizens to the mix)...But I also think that it is important to the narrative in terms of the adult males in the story, which you get at in the next part of your post. QUOTE(fidelia @ Oct 9 2009, 10:03 PM) And yes, it's psychologically interesting that the adults around Harry have no such parental barrier to rely upon. Sirius, Remus, Severus, and Hagrid are all alone, just like Harry. I find it interesting that almost all of the men surrounding Harry are orphans -- and that none of them but Remus has a "significant other" in their lives. (And let's face it: Remus makes rather a hash out of that anyway. He is unable to commit to his wife and unborn child, and yearns to accompany the trio on one last bout of Marauder adventure and glory). Certainly Remus, Severus, and Sirius have some arrested development which is striking. These men also all share a certain familiarity with danger and live with a brio mostly seen with the unencumbered. But in any regard, their "adult orphan" status is tragic -- and certainly lonely. Perhaps they all were knowingly created without parents to account to so that they could more readily identify with Harry's solitary state, and they are also free to take more of an active role in Harry's life? I think identification is part of it, but not explicit. To me, it's not just that there is a missing generation of adults because they are likely dead due to the last wizarding war or natural causes (presumably, Harry's grandparents were older than average, given that JKR explained that they had James later in life). It's that they're barely mentioned at all. And I'm not just referring to Harry's g-parents here. It's interesting that you mention the freedom to take a more active role in Harry's life because the middle-aged adults are functionally orphans themselves. I say interesting because that implies something about the responsibility of older adults for the next generation of adults, and vice versa. I like that idea and wonder if JKR was making a commentary about this. I won't go so far as to claim that she had some master plan in removing what would have been "the greatest generation" in the wizarding world because I do think she was doing some character pruning as well. However, the majority of older adults presumably don't have children, so if they die (or, when they do die), they are not leaving loved ones behind. Considering the devastation she felt over her mother's death, I do think this is relevant. In addition, as for the behavior of the middle-aged men in the story, they are all written as immature in some way. As someone in her thirties, I can understand why a thirty-something woman would write her male characters this way (no offense guys, but she was a divorcee at the time and that does carry some weight). QUOTE(fidelia @ Oct 9 2009, 10:03 PM) Also, from a literary perspective, none of these characters have to take family considerations into account when they take action or make their choices. I'm not saying that family connections rigidly control our actions -- but they are oftentimes prime considerations. Almost no one surrounding Harry has to worry about extended family, parents, or filial responsibilities. They are all lone agents, free to act for themselves. And this does, admittedly, give the characters quite a bit of leeway in their decision-making process. (Actually, the only character we see torn and in agony over family considerations is Molly -- and she's worried about those coming after her -- her children. The Prewett parents are gone, as are her brothers. ) There's no web of family connectedness which acts as a check upon the characters' impulses. Parents can often put the brakes on reckless behavior -- and these male characters have no brakes on them whatsoever. These guys all lack someone with life experience, sound advice, or who act as mature role models. And it shows. I'm not sure that the parents of adults necessarily put the brakes on this behavior. Rather, I think they give adult children pause. When your parents are aging, you start to realize that someday they're going to end up living with you and you have to make room for them in your life again. The dynamic changes from being taken care of by adults to being the care-taker for adults. Outside of this, there is an interesting pattern here, particularly among the thirty-something bachelors (I include Remus in this since he was still a bachelor into his thirties). Assuming that the adult parents disappeared for whatever reason when their children were in their twenties, a period during which we are still neurologically adolescents, there seems to be an alignment between the missing older generation and a continued lack of maturity. I don't see it as a lack of role models, since there were still older men around, but I still wonder about it. Granted, the same case could be made that they are immature because they were still bachelors (we've all known men who only hit maturity because they got married or had a kid, no offense guys). Also, with the exception of Hagrid (who's technically sixty-ish anyway, though we don't know what that is in strictly human years), these parentless late bloomers are killed off, but that's for another thread. QUOTE(fidelia @ Oct 9 2009, 10:03 PM) We see virtually no grandfathers in the series that I can think of. (Neville had one, but we really only learn that Neville saw him die). Sadly, the few matriarchal images we have --Augusta and Andromeda -- suffer terrible losses. They are women who have lost almost everyone they love, and they stand as guardians over children who have lost everything themselves. These women are truly tragic figures. The bottom line I walk away with this that family ties and indeed mere familial presence is ephemeral in the wizarding world. Love certainly exists, and the Weasleys are outstanding examples of familial love, as are the Potters. But we don't ever really see characters having large, multi-generational families. We don't see intricate family connections and intergenerational interactions. Parental wisdom, parental love, and responsibilities to parents are thin on the ground in the series. The characters know quite a bit of freedom, but it's a marred freedom. As for family legacy question, we really only see that in the more established wizarding families. We find only a few, mostly pureblood families (like the Blacks), who actually been able to found a dynasty over time. Since no one seems to live a long and healthy life in the wizarding world, these families have to rely on sheer numbers of family members and lots of time. Only the largest and oldest wizarding families have the capability of leaving behind a family legacy. And that's terribly sad as well. To me, the missing grandparents (and grandparent aged parents) do make a statement: they are irrelevant to one's identity, or one's understanding of self. Absence of the prior generation helps set up the themes of self-reliance and, even more interesting to me, family as a creation (rather than a given). Case in point, Harry doesn't have a real family and ends up constructing one out of friends and the various adults in his life. And as weird as this sounds, the DEs are a family (which sets up a whole other dynamic when we consider the Malfoys wandering loyalties to LV because they have both a real family and a constructed one). As for famililal legacy, I agree, but with one change. There are people who do live to a ripe old age, and they have little to no family ties. Considering the elderly and presumably single staffmembers at Hogwarts, this adds another dimension to the whole thing, IMO. QUOTE(Fricka @ Oct 15 2009, 10:11 AM) Even with the war presenting a logical reason for SOME of the lack of older witches and wizards, it does not quite explain why there is such a dearth of older wizards within family structures. Are we to connect the single state of wizards with a longer life expectancy, then? At Hogwarts, for example, we know that Dumbledore is the elder headmaster, and the "much younger" McGonagall is described as being in her 70's. It appears that if one is a teacher at a magic school like Hogwarts, then one might have a longer life expectancy, but if one is an ordinary witch or wizard, who has children, one' s life span will be fairly short. Not much of a selling point for being a member of the wizarding community, is it? Ha ha...I can just imagine someone declining a marriage proposal to a wizard with this..."Sorry, but I'd like to make it past retirement age. Thanks for the offer though." -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Oct 17 2009, 09:22 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Stocking Snitches at Quality Quidditch Supplies Posts: 672 Joined: 6:25am December 9, 2007 Location: Canada |
QUOTE(Fricka @ Oct 15 2009, 09:11 AM) Even with the war presenting a logical reason for SOME of the lack of older witches and wizards, it does not quite explain why there is such a dearth of older wizards within family structures. Are we to connect the single state of wizards with a longer life expectancy, then? At Hogwarts, for example, we know that Dumbledore is the elder headmaster, and the "much younger" McGonagall is described as being in her 70's. It appears that if one is a teacher at a magic school like Hogwarts, then one might have a longer life expectancy, but if one is an ordinary witch or wizard, who has children, one' s life span will be fairly short. Not much of a selling point for being a member of the wizarding community, is it? We do not, in fact, know that the witches and wizards who teach at Hogwarts are single and/or do not have children (offstage, as it were). In her BBC Online interview of March 12, 2001, Jo was asked if any of the Hogwarts teachers are married and she replies that some of them are. She did not specify which are and which aren't. But the implication is that, just because we never see or hear about the spouses of any of the teachers, that does not mean the teachers - and other Hogwarts staff - are all unmarried. They obviously aren't. Being a professor at Hogwarts is not entering the priesthood or becoming a nun. (Big Grin) The spouses of the people who teach Harry et al are not pertinent to the story. Thus, Jo did not feel it necessary to mention them. But it doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, in her interview on Scholastic.com (Oct. 16, 2000), JKR was asked about Professor McGonagall's age. She replied, "Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy." Thus, it is very, very possible that - if she was 70 years old in 1991, when Harry entered Hogwarts - Minerva either was a widow or had a live husband back at home in Scotland; and was the mother of one, or two, five, or however many grown sons or daughters. Very possible, in my view. Again, in the books we do not know if she or any of the other adults at the school are or are not married. There is no canon either way. If one's whole argument against this is based on the fact that we do not see or hear of McGonagall's - or anyone else's - spouse (if he or she exists), the logical conclusion one must have to arrive at is that absolutely no member of the Hogwarts staff is married. Since we do not see or hear of any of the spouses of the professors, Madam Pomfrey, etc. This being the case, it is amazing that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is able to recruit or keep any staff at all. (hee, hee) Not only do you have to be proficient in your area of expertise and a qualified teacher - a few DADA professors being the exception -, but you have to take a vow to remain single throughout your whole career. Not at all logical. Also, as we know, Neville Longbottom became both a teacher at Hogwarts and a married man. I seriously doubt if he is the exception to the rule here. In other words, I believe Jo that several members of the Hogwarts teaching and non-teaching staff are married and probably have children, but that that is not considered relevant to the HP saga by the author and is therefore not information Jo has chosen to put into the books. Laura "But you know, this is a book, you know. Maybe one day there will be an Encyclopedia, and that would be a different-- a different kettle of fish. But within a novel-- within a novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything." - JKR (NBC Dateline, July 29, 2007) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edited to add - By the way, I do not assume that Snape's parents were not alive throughout the seven books, and I do not assume that very possibly some or one of his grandparents were not alive at the beginning of the series (they would be in their 80s I guess). And I do not assume that Lupin's parents were not alive throughout the seven books, and I do not assume that possibly one or more of his grandparents were not alive when we first meet Lupin in the third (again, in their 80s I guess). They are just not pertinent to the whole HP saga as written. Same with Ron's grandparents, Luna's grandparents, Tonk's grandparents on her father's side, etc., for that matter. They may all still be there. I do not believe we are told in canon or in a JKR interview that the Prewett parents (ie - Molly's parents) are gone - as we are definitely told in OoP about her brothers' deaths -, nor that Arthur's parents are both dead. (Are we?) They just do not appear in the story. Do not appear when Harry is around, as the story is told from Harry's POV. (Since Hagrid is in his sixties, I think it is fair to assume the parents of his wizard father would be deceased by 1991 - of old age.) Remus probably visited with his parents - who were, apparently, from what we are told in canon, very supportive of their sick child - on a regular basis. And maybe with his grandparents too, if any of them were alive. But that is part of the character's offstage life. No need for HP readers to see that. (There is A LOT of Lupin's offstage life that I would have liked to have seen, by the way, but that was kept from us by the author! (grrr!)) Perhaps his kind, caring and gentle nature came from one or both of his parents or from one or all of his grandparents. It was important to see Seamus' mother in GoF because he and Dean would have had to come to the Quidditch World Cup with an adult - they only being 14 years old. And for her to be mentioned again in regard to Seamus believing the Daily Prophet articles about Harry in the summer of 1995 and for her to be mentioned in the argument she and her son had about Seamus going or not going to Dumbledore's funeral. Seamus' mother was a character who forwarded the story on more than one occasion. Therefore, she was seen and heard about. Had she not been mentioned, however, I doubt if any of us would have assumed that Seamus Finnigan did not have any parents. And he probably has two sets of grandparents too, while we're at it (grin): a Muggle couple and a magical couple. This post has been edited by Laura W: Oct 18 2009, 07:26 AM -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Nov 28 2009, 10:49 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher Posts: 195 Joined: 11:46pm June 12, 2009 |
How ironic that this became an orphan...
I apologize for not responding...for some reason this wasn't in my forums and I had no idea that anyone posted after me... On with the show... QUOTE(Laura W @ Oct 17 2009, 09:22 PM) By the way, I do not assume that Snape's parents were not alive throughout the seven books, and I do not assume that very possibly some or one of his grandparents were not alive at the beginning of the series (they would be in their 80s I guess). And I do not assume that Lupin's parents were not alive throughout the seven books, and I do not assume that possibly one or more of his grandparents were not alive when we first meet Lupin in the third (again, in their 80s I guess). They are just not pertinent to the whole HP saga as written. Same with Ron's grandparents, Luna's grandparents, Tonk's grandparents on her father's side, etc., for that matter. They may all still be there. I do not believe we are told in canon or in a JKR interview that the Prewett parents (ie - Molly's parents) are gone - as we are definitely told in OoP about her brothers' deaths -, nor that Arthur's parents are both dead. (Are we?) They just do not appear in the story. Do not appear when Harry is around, as the story is told from Harry's POV. Remus probably visited with his parents - who were, apparently, from what we are told in canon, very supportive of their sick child - on a regular basis. And maybe with his grandparents too, if any of them were alive. But that is part of the character's offstage life. No need for HP readers to see that. (There is A LOT of Lupin's offstage life that I would have liked to have seen, by the way, but that was kept from us by the author! (grrr!)) Perhaps his kind, caring and gentle nature came from one or both of his parents or from one or all of his grandparents. Thanks for your thoughts Laura W! I have a question, related to what you've written and what fidelia and I discussed a couple of posts ago (please see above...even with a few glasses of wine in me, I'm not so bold as to quote myself...  )...I'm curious what the absence says about families, family legacy, and definitions of maturity. As I mentioned in my original post, it's not about dead versus not dead, it's about absence and what that says with regards to familial relationships, familial legacies, maturation, etc. I'm perfectly willing to admit that any author has to prune characters for their story. However, to me, it was not the pruning of individuals, it was the pruning of a group. That is what made me curious...and still has my attention... -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2009, 04:47 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Stocking Snitches at Quality Quidditch Supplies Posts: 672 Joined: 6:25am December 9, 2007 Location: Canada |
Hi Severa:
Hey, I quote myself all the time ... and that's without any wine in me. (heheh) I'm afraid you are asking the wrong person. I know exactly how you see the omission of a whole lot of people (ie - grandparents and parents) from the HP books. From your first post on, you expressed that very eloquently. But I do not see it that way. I see it as i have expressed in my various posts on this thread. And that's it. No more "obscurous" than that. I do not think that the absence of these characters (ie - the grandparents of all the HP characters) says anything about how Jo feels about familial relations, family legacy, etc. It might say something about same, but not to me. Obviously, as shown in the HP series, the author feels very strongly about the importance of a loving family. We see this with the Weasleys in particular. And with the Potters (up to and including Oct. 31, 1981). And with the bond between Hagrid and his father. The love that obviously exists between Luna and her father. Between Cedric and his parents. The fondness we observe between the Creevey brothers in OoP. Etc. On the same hand, the author unquestionably feels strongly about the pain that not having a family or having a "bad" family can result in. Harry and the Dursleys, Sirius and most of the other Blacks, Hagrid and his mother, Snape and his father (at least), the Gaunts, Tom Riddle (some might say). Thus, Jo is writing about familial relationships constantly in the HP series. As I see it. Guess I just see the absence of grandparents, etc. as being for the reasons I have already given in my posts. As I wrote: "Quite frankly, I think that some characters were not put in the series because they were not directly relevant to the story. They would neither further the plot nor inform us further in any important way about the characters who are relevant. Thus, they were left offstage, as it were." (See, I told you I didn't mind quoting myself. (hee, hee) ) I do not feel this is because Jo is anti-grandparent or feels that loving grandparents are unimportant to a child. Harry just would not have met the Patil sisters' grandparents. He doesn't see them, so we don't see them. Harry wouldn't have met Krum's grandparents or Cedric Diggory's grandparents. He doesn't see them, so we don't see them. For me, that in no way means they do not exist. Does not mean that grandparents were not part of the Patil or Krum or Diggory family unit, family legacy. A group was pruned from the story? Well, if you want to put it that way. A group of people who would have no reason to interact with Harry over the period of his life that we are privy to. I guess you and fidelia - and undoubtedly others - read far more into this than I do. (Each to her own, eh?) I know you want a much more intellectual answer to your original points in your first post, and a much more intellectual debate about it. I'm just not the one to provide it, I'm afraid. I call it like I see it and, if I'm missing something deeper here, guess I'll just have to live with it. (Big Friendly Smile) Laura -------------------- |
|
|
|
