|
Post by vegablack on Mar 10, 2009 18:40:13 GMT -5
Thanks!
Despite all I wrote I still do not want Neville to have been tortured, both for him and his parents. They lost everything I like for them to have been able to have had the dignity of having been able to protect their son.
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Mar 10, 2009 18:48:01 GMT -5
I dislike the theory that Neville's forgetfulness is the result of a powerful Memory Charm because not every fault has a magical source. Some people are just forgetful! Neville is an anxious child, and his anxiety is made worse by his grandmother and being bullied not only by his peers but by a teacher. As his self-confidence grows, his forgetfulness improves.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 11, 2009 10:56:41 GMT -5
We aren't so much looking for a magical explanations for Neville's behavior as linking canon events to what we know about him.
Neville is an anxious fearful kid. Perhaps the fact that he was pushed off a pier by his uncle at seven and hung by his ankle out an upper story window at eight had something to do with that. These experiences weren't isolated but part of a system of behavior, that I think would give a child fears. Just as the fact that Petunia and Vernon kept Harry in a cupboard under the stairs, gave him nothing more than an old toothpic for his birthday, lied about him and his parents shouted at him, threatened him and resented the air he breathed gave hints on why Harry could walk away from their home without a regret.
The fact that Neville's family thought he was a Squib and let him know they did also helps explain why he has such self doubt about his magical abilities.
(The fact that they also love him explains a lot about him too.)
We are just taking the fact that Neville's parents were attacked and tortured and seeing if there is a link between that and his forgetfullness which was bad enough to effect his life (the password incident) and be constantly noticed by his peers. The fact that it led to a major incident raised the trait to something beyond the average.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 16, 2009 1:01:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 25, 2009 1:18:19 GMT -5
Neville tells Harry that after his gran's escape the death eaters "realized they had no hold over me." Why would they "realize" they had no hold over Neville when his parents are still alive. Is this a plot hole? Has JKR forgotten that his parents are alive? Does Neville not care about what happens to his parents?
I've heard theories that his parents were put into hiding or that they Death Eaters wouldn't think Neville cared about his parents because they were so disabled.
Do any of you have theories?
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Apr 3, 2009 17:24:51 GMT -5
Can you give me the book and page number so I can read the whole context? I can't recall reading this before.
|
|
nundu
Second Year
Posts: 25
|
Post by nundu on Apr 3, 2009 17:35:15 GMT -5
The book is Deathly Hallows, chapter twenty-nine. In the US version it's on pages 575 and 576. In the UK version, it's on pages 463 and 464.
|
|
|
Post by Chocolatepot on Apr 3, 2009 18:17:14 GMT -5
As a reader I would call it a plothole; as a fan I must deduce that St. Mungo's is too closely guarded for Death Eaters to steal patients.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Apr 21, 2009 16:59:08 GMT -5
I've read critics of the books who claim that the Malfoys were the most caring family in the books because they put their love and loyalty for each other ahead of everything. (I will answer my take on that on the Draco thread.)
So were parents like the Longbottoms or Potters or Edgar Bones poor parents because they put their commitment to the Order ahead of their own children's safety. It appears that the Bones children died.
The Longbottoms left Neville an Orphan for all intents and purposes, just as Harry was left an Orphan. Both boys suffered because of the loss of their parents. Was this irresponsible of their parents? Were they wrong to have children given their circumstances as members or the losing side (at that time) in a desperate war.
Frank Longbottom appears to have allowed his wife to be tortured rather than co-operate with his attackers. Does this make him a bad husband?
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Apr 21, 2009 17:57:19 GMT -5
I don't think so. I've seen people argue that Remus and Tonks (usually Tonks ) were bad parents for leaving Teddy behind but that was their job and more importantly, they were fighting for Teddy. All these people were fighting to make a better world for their children. They didn't want their children to grow up terrorized by Lord Voldemort and their followers. The Longbottoms had no reason to believe that their son - the other boy that prophecy could have referred to - was no longer in danger while Voldemort's followers were still out there. As much as they may have been trying to fight for their ideals or bring order to the wizarding world, many of these families were fighting for their own survival and freedom. As for being irresponsible - when is a good time to have a child? I mean, yes ideally one is older and settled in life and has an income but there are no guarantees in life. I'm sure the people who waited till after Voldemort was seemingly vanquished and started their families then may have felt they were doing the smart thing. Then Voldy came back!
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Apr 21, 2009 18:53:59 GMT -5
I was thinking of the criticism of Tonks as well when I wrote this. But let's say, the Longbottoms did not know about the prophesy. That was possible given D. penchant for secrecy. We aren't really told whether they knew about the prophesy. Augusta doesn't act as if she knows and neither does Neville and since Augusta was the guardian I would think her son would tell her something so important for Neville's safety. Especially given how dangerous his job was.
So lets say the Longbottoms didn't know about the prophesy. They were purebloods they probably could have had a decent life if they chosen to. Lets say they were fighting purely for principle. Were they wrong to risk their child's safety that way?
I would say no. That even if they risked their child's safety. They had loyalties and obligations to society and to justice along with what they owed their child. They also had a responsibility to their child to teach him about justice even by example. (I think the Malfoy's did wrong by their child raising him to be a biggot. By the way I saw nothing wrong with what Tonks did.)
But not everyone agrees with me. I've read a lot of snark over the fact that only the Malfoy's put their child and each other first.
|
|
|
Post by Ilene Bones on Apr 21, 2009 19:50:19 GMT -5
It seems there are two questions being discussed here. One is, is it selfish to "leave your kid behind" and fight, as did James, Lily, Frank, Alice, Tonks, and Lupin? The other is, is it selfish to have kids at all if you're going to bring them into a war? Same question could be posed to Arthur and Molly though they weren't in the order the first time around, they did continue to have many children knowing they might come into a very dark world.
I don't think either is selfish, really. Although I don't criticize people who decide to wait to have kids until a better time. I know a married couple who've been together a long time and don't have kids yet, even though they want to eventually, and what I understand is, they are both so busy working right now (they do not work 9-to-5 jobs but jobs that require them to work nights a lot) that they don't think they would have time to be good parents. So they'd rather wait until they are more financially secure and not have to work such long hours, and be actually around to raise their kids. I totally understand that reasoning, though I know people in similar situations who have decided not to wait. Also, I have noticed that some people wait too long and often, ironically, by the time everything is "perfect" to have kids, they find they are infertile.
As for leaving your kids to go to war, haven't men been doing that for generations? So I suspect some sexism at play when the question is raised when women are going to war, that is usually not raised when men go to war. But I will note that much of the criticism of Tonks is not that she went to fight, but that people suspect she went to Hogwarts not for a high, principled reason, but more because she was worried about Lupin and wanted to be with him. Thus showing she was a weak woman whose life wound up revolving around a man, not a strong woman willing to fight for her principles.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Apr 22, 2009 11:16:16 GMT -5
Fighting the kind of war the Longbottoms and Potters were fighting goes beyond leaving your kids to fight since we know the Death Eaters made the families of their enemies a focus of attack. Edgar Bones and the McKinnons were killed with their entire family. The Montgomery boy was killed by a Werewolf to punish the parents for not co-operating with Death Eaters. At the end of DH Voldemort threatens to kill not only the defenders of Hogwarts but their entire families if they continue to defy him. The Potters' and the Longbottoms' sons were both threatened.
Alice was apparently attacked not only because of her own work as an Auror but to get to Frank. As the torture went on enough that she went mad, it is implied that he didn't give in. (She was an Auror and maybe didn't want him to.)
Joining the Order and standing up to Voldemort put members families at risk the way leaving to fight a war somewhere else does not.
Are you a bad parent if you allow your child to be put at risk for your principles. Are you a bad husband if you risk your wife.
(I think Tonks gets a bad rap from people who criticize her for looking for Remus at the battle. Who wouldn't look for a loved one on a battle field? The Weasley brothers are together when Fred is killed. They don't split up. Its natural for people to want to fight with, defend and be with those they love. I'd be surprised if the people making the criticism would have behaved any differently.)
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Apr 23, 2009 1:41:32 GMT -5
I think that needs read in context. Neville was specifically refering to the Carrows doings in Hogwarts. He was talking about the Carrows not being able to control him with the threat of harming his Gran. St. Mungo's is fairly well fortified, and while we did see poor old Bode get throttled through nefarious means, Frank and Alice are probably fairly safe there (especially after the Bode incident, undoeubtedly protections would have tightened after that). It is also possible that the Carrows don't consider Frank and Alice as functional beings and couldn't imagine Neville caring about defective parents ( the old not-understanding-Love that Dumbledore keeps harping on - which segues nicely into...).
Sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. If you have values that are solid and important enough, you defend them to the death. Like shade-Lupin tells Harry as they walk in the Forbidden Forest, stopping V was more important than his own life and he knew the ones who did survive would see that his child not only thrived, but knew the reason his parents sacrificed themselves to acomplish those ends.
(Plus, all these people were still in their "bullet-proof" phases of life and though aware of the possibility of being killed, were probably sure it wouldn't happen to them.)
It would be irresponsible to live on their knees...to sentence their kids to a life on their knees. ...The old, a coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero only one.
They couldn't have told the Bella and crew anything if they had wanted to. They didn't know where Voldemort was, which is what the Death Eater's were after.
.
|
|
|
Post by Mirabelle on Apr 23, 2009 4:36:45 GMT -5
Even if Alice had given them information, Bella & Co would have probably still tortured the Longbottoms into insanity. I don't see the higher level Death Eaters as people who'd uphold the Geneva Convention.
|
|
|
Post by Author By Night on Apr 24, 2009 8:19:55 GMT -5
Even if Alice had given them information, Bella & Co would have probably still tortured the Longbottoms into insanity. I don't see the higher level Death Eaters as people who'd uphold the Geneva Convention. The Longbottoms also probably arrested a good number of Death Eaters. Plus, since they were Pureblood, they'd be blood traitors - which according to Ron in HBP is just as bad as being muggleborn in their eyes. It also could have been a message. The wizarding world was starting to calm down, and suddenly, two of the most powerful Aurors are attacked into insanity. (And the intention might have been to kill them slowly and painfully.) It was their sadistic way of saying "you think we're gone, but we're not - nor is the Dark Lord. He'll rise again." They couldn't get extra information, but at least they had that. (And it's really creepy getting into the mind of Bellatrix Lestrange...) MWPP, what an interesting article! That actually leads me to a question I've been wondering for a while... is their insanity brain damage or severe trauma they never recovered from? When we saw Frank in OoTP, he was just laying in bed, which could imply a coma-like state... but Alice was humming. To me, humming seems like an almost compulsive behavior, done as a way to relieve agitation.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Apr 24, 2009 9:13:35 GMT -5
Author by Night Frank is not laying in bed in OotP. he does that in fandom. We don't see him in OOTP at all. We are told that they live in the beds at the end of the room. We are told that they are behind a curtain and that Neville's mother comes out from behind a curtain. Ron asks if that is Neville's father over there after trying to peek past the curtain but we are not told what he sees. We are not told anything about what Neville's father is doing. We have no reason to believe that he is worse off than his wife.
Inert Longbottoms are a particular bugbear of mine because it is practically a rule in fandom that the Longbottoms and Neville's father especially spends most of his life sleeping. Real mentally disabled people don't act that way, why write the Longbottoms that way?
Mrs. Longbottom makes "timid motions" toward Neville. She drops the wrapper into his hand and then "tottered away, back up the ward, humming to herself." I think the humming is an expression of pleasure on her part. I think she wanted to do something -- give Neville a wrapper -- and she did it. So she was glad and hummed. My son works in a dementia ward and the patients there often sing. Even patients advanced in their dementia sing or like to hear singing. Music is one of the last things we lose he was told. He told me he wished he could sing it would make handling them easier.
Actually she was expressing herself nonverbaly. Nonverbal brain damaged people are taught to communicate by handing people cards. A modern therapist would be pleased by her actions. She would see potential in the timid gestures and the habit of handing people things. They would teach her to hand people cards with picture messages on them expressing simple likes and dislikes and desires. The fact that one would say son or Neville would be a given. (I work with kids at my church who communicate that way. I know of a kid who is missing a large part of her brain and she communicates this way. Sometimes she has a picture book which allows her to point to drawings that express ideas and speak for her. Even the very disabled can communicate and need to. Everyone needs a voice.)
The idea that Neville is her son would be of course arbitrary because we don't know how much she understands about the concept of son any more. But its obvious that he is important to her in some way. She doesn't hand arbitrary people in the ward wrappers.
|
|
|
Post by Author By Night on Apr 24, 2009 9:42:43 GMT -5
Frank is not laying in bed in OotP. he does that in fandom. We don't see him in OOTP at all. Ooh, another one of those "facts," then. Wow. You're right though - actually, I think even before OoTP the Longbottoms were often portrayed as just sleeping or staring out the window. I like your insight there, about people with dementia and disabilities. So are you saying they are brain damaged, and not victims of PTSD, then? I'm not sure if PTSD victims have been known to go insane.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Apr 24, 2009 17:01:36 GMT -5
I don't know much about PTSD. I wouldn't think a person suffering from it would forget their son or need to be cared for in a closed ward. I think Alice acts more like someone with a damaged brain. She doesn't seem able to function or live on her own. The need for such close care, the loss of her past memories and her behavior points to that to me. She might have PTSD as well.
They could have had strokes during the torture or been deprived of oxygen. There could be something in the nature of the Cruciatus curse that damages the brain when applied powerfully continually and over a long period. There were four attackers and we don't know how long they had the Longbottoms.
Bertha Jorkins appears to have been damaged irrevocably by what ever means Voldemort used to break her memory spell. He kills her because she was too damaged to live. His snarkiness seemed to imply the Cruciatus curse played a role. What ever happened we can see spells that ruin peoples mind.
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Apr 30, 2009 10:58:28 GMT -5
I tend to think it's both - they suffer from brain damage (probably something similar to a massive or several massive strokes) and they have emotional/mental trauma like PTSD and possibly depression given the seeming dullness of their life at St. Mungo's.
So I think even if there were a way to magically undo the physical damage, you'd still have to work on the emotional and mental trauma that comes with what happened and from missing 20 or 30 years of their lives. And they may need physical therapy as well since Alice may be mute and Frank's mobility is up in the air.
On the upside, being wizards, they should have very long lifespans so even if it's in their 50's or 60's that someone decides they can do more than warehouse the Longbottoms, they could still have decades with Neville and his family.
|
|