But did Molly's fussing ever actually stop her kids from doing those things that would allow them to grow? Because there's a difference between making what my late Dad would call "Mommy noises" and actually preventing your offspring from trying their wings.
I can't actually remember? And yes to the "Mommy noises," but again, the thing that irritates me is that they're Mommy noises, not parent noises. Also, Molly at times does try to prevent Ron, Hermione and Harry from going off and doing things, like how she tries to keep them apart during the first part of HP7. And that looks like complete denial to me, particularly because a) Molly has a history of trying not to get the kids involved (see: her general approval of withholding information from Harry in previous books, which I would argue is considered to be a bad thing by the end of the series, a la the revelations about Dumbledore) and b) Arthur is actively attempting to help the trio with their plans to get the Horcruxes and trusting them.
b) wouldn't bug me as much except for the fact that Rowling has fairly consistently shown Molly to keep information from the trio and to keep them from acting, while Arthur has generally let them do their thing. And I think it can be argued that in RL, keeping info from them could be a good thing, but I think Rowling portrays the secrecy of information and keeping the trio from doing what needs to be done as a bad thing.
Surely there's a difference between romanticizing a character, and having a character show a romantic side? The first is a meta-function performed by the author, the second is something within the character's own (fictional) reality.
Well, yeah, except I think it is a meta-function that Rowling is performing. Part of it is that I've read and watched entirely too many "bad" men transformed by the power of love! So they save the world! And gain redemption! Um, sorry about the sarcasm, but yes, the Spike wars still bug me ;). And I was a Spike fan! After reading selenak's post, I think Snape isn't quite as romanticized as a lot of bad-guys-turned-good/bad-guys-secretly-good, given that he does have his own moral compass by the end. And I liked her comment about Rowling showing up Dumbledore's disdain, which I think mitigates some of the romanticization. But on the other hand, I dislike it because it's still the "woman in the refrigerator" trope, in which dead women get to motivate others, but they remain dead and therefore inactive, and because it's a trope used so often for men turning to the good side. I think it's some unthinking romanticization on Rowling's part of motherhood and Lily (who seems cool when we see her, and I am not bashing Lily. I just... want her to have more to do).
no subject
I can't actually remember? And yes to the "Mommy noises," but again, the thing that irritates me is that they're Mommy noises, not parent noises. Also, Molly at times does try to prevent Ron, Hermione and Harry from going off and doing things, like how she tries to keep them apart during the first part of HP7. And that looks like complete denial to me, particularly because a) Molly has a history of trying not to get the kids involved (see: her general approval of withholding information from Harry in previous books, which I would argue is considered to be a bad thing by the end of the series, a la the revelations about Dumbledore) and b) Arthur is actively attempting to help the trio with their plans to get the Horcruxes and trusting them.
b) wouldn't bug me as much except for the fact that Rowling has fairly consistently shown Molly to keep information from the trio and to keep them from acting, while Arthur has generally let them do their thing. And I think it can be argued that in RL, keeping info from them could be a good thing, but I think Rowling portrays the secrecy of information and keeping the trio from doing what needs to be done as a bad thing.
Surely there's a difference between romanticizing a character, and having a character show a romantic side? The first is a meta-function performed by the author, the second is something within the character's own (fictional) reality.
Well, yeah, except I think it is a meta-function that Rowling is performing. Part of it is that I've read and watched entirely too many "bad" men transformed by the power of love! So they save the world! And gain redemption! Um, sorry about the sarcasm, but yes, the Spike wars still bug me ;). And I was a Spike fan! After reading