The Fall of the House of ______
This thread turned out to be so interesting, it's gotten me thinking even more about incest in literature and what it stands for. Unfortunately I really haven't read any lit crit on the subject. I have a feeling I'll be surfing around today looking for some. The weird thing, too, is that the subject seems to tie in with other recent subjects on flist, like racism in HP and strangely enough, the South(eastern US).
For now, I'm just thinking about
wayfairer put up a poll on the subject (it's f'locked so I won't link to it), which referenced several well-known works: The Fall of the House of Usher, Flowers in the Attic, Hamlet, Wuthering Heights, Shadow of a Doubt and Turn of the Screw. One aspect of incest in literature that was brought up on pandarus's lj and then here was narcissism. ceris writes: "apparently many psychologists believe that all incest is narcissistic behavior, and that this explains much of the attraction between siblings." This, of course, makes sense because one of the draws of the idea is that these people share a special bond. Much is made of this in Flowers in the Attic, certainly. That work may be completely out of the league of all the other works mentioned in the above list, which are all classics, but maybe that's helpful. Since FitA is never known for its subtly in prose or theme, it perhaps just blurts out what is subtext in better works.
Narcissism as a psychological disorder is defined as "A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy and unconscious deficits in self-esteem. But I think the definitions more at play in these works are 1. Excessive love or admiration for oneself and 2. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. In discussing HP in the other thread, there was a general agreement that incest involving the Weasley family was somehow different than that involving the Malfoys and Blacks. The Malfoys and Blacks are immediately recognizable as the kind of Gothic creations for which this sort of thing is normal, whereas with the Weasleys incest seems more linked to abuse. It seems wrong for the individuals involved while Malfoycest seems "wrong" in a way that suits everything else that's "wrong" about the Malfoys.
And what is that? Well, the Malfoys and the Blacks are both heavily associated with the HP equivalent of racism--they are obsessed with keeping their blood "pure" as well as their world. They hang their family tree on a tapestry to keep track of it, know who is "one of them" and who isn't. Any claim of Purebloodedness, in fact, assumes an interest in one's family history. Ernie Macmillan boasts that his family is pureblooded going back X generations. One of the first things Harry thinks about Ron is that he must be from one of those "old Pureblood families" described by the boy in the robe shop and Harry is right. In fact, since there appears to be just one big Pureblood family broken into subgroups that intermarry, Ron's old Pureblood family is the same as Draco's.
In canon, I love any reference to this type of connection between the two families, and I think it is there, in the subtext, as the basis of the Ron/Draco rivalry. They know who each other is on sight based on things their fathers have said. Their fathers hate each other. Arthur specifically targets Lucius with his raids, and Lucius returns the favor with Ginny. Even better, for me, is the way that the twins and Ron all seem genuinely frustrated by their poverty at times-the twins are perfectly unethical when it comes to getting money. Percy, too, seems eager to win some respect for the family name. To me, there's an underlying Pureblood pride that just isn't spoken because it so conflicts with their public stance. They do believe, imo, that they are just as good as the Malfoys--better, really-and part of that is because of their origins.
This is where I start to think about exactly what I like about the Malfoys and Blacks. In the racism thread lonicera in particular brought up the important point that racism almost always comes down to the idea (misguided as it may be) that these "other people" are threatening one's own way of life. Racism almost always makes some appeal to the way things are "supposed to be" and appeals to self-preservation. I mean, there's the racist mindset that convinced white slavers it was okay to kidnap Africans because they were "suited" to slavery and would benefit from being brought to "civilization" whichever way it happened, but it was really once they were here that we started to see racism in its familiar form, with the idea that African Americans were a threat to the white race, would "pollute" it, rise up against it. And of course from the non-white perspective it's the same thing, only sometimes it's got a more realistic basis. A Native American might be wrong to think a particular white person is out to rob him of his culture, but historically this is exactly what European Americans did. A modern American Indian therefore understandably might see himself as holding on to what he has left. This is not unlike the Southern attitude Aja described in her lj. A way of life is under attack from those people, and they are not going to let it go without a fight. Incest is hardly an unheard of theme in Southern literature--or American literature. The Gothic tradition is originally English, but American Gothic and Southern Gothic are vibrant traditions offering their own spin on it, incest and all.
I realized this is probably why I just can't be totally against families like the Malfoys and the Blacks. To me it's just natural to see something worth preserving in all that history. I *am* disturbed at the idea of Sirius wanting to toss out everything in his house. The whole "cleaning" aspect of OotP seemed aggressive to me, knowing that we're not just getting rid of cobwebs but the things important to the family Sirius hated, mostly lumped together as "dark artifacts." (And don't the Weasley twins keep some of that for themselves? Hmm...) Sirius is openly trying to destroy his family, wipe it out. When the family fights back Sirius himself is destroyed. The family sustains a blow, but there are still a few remnants left. Those remnants seem even more vulnerable now. Draco (the character so many people see as unimportant) seems to be the end of the line for both the Malfoys and the Blacks. Knowing that he is a 50/50 split of these families, the idea of him being destroyed and his inheritance scattered amongst those who don't appreciate it bothers me. It's funny...America has such a history of doing just that, of wiping out the past, forgetting it, and replacing it with the new and shiny. But I think that's also why we tend to be so fascinated with Europeans. If we would just leave something alone long enough to become ancient I think we'd be just as attached to it as we are the old houses of Europe.
The idea of a "House" is always important in classic Gothic lit, with all its incest. There's almost always a family manse, often crumbling and full of secrets, that must be preserved. And that house always refers to both the structure and the family inside. Looking at the above list, there's the House of Usher, that Dollinger mansion, Hamlet's castle, Wuthering Heights, and Bly. Three out of those five even reference the house in the title in some way. (I don't mean to diss Shadow of a Doubt by leaving it out, but it's kind of unique in that it's not exactly Gothic and the people involved are uncle and niece, so further removed than is often considered wrong...although their having the same name clearly indicates not only narcissism, but echoes of a father/daughter connection.) The houses mentioned are also all of them either literally haunted or thought to be so. Again that makes sense--the house is shared by the present and the past. It can't be ignored.
That's why, I think, I can't help but naturally root for these families to continue. We may be seeing the ragged end of a great bloodline, but what a shame to lose all that history, dark and bloody as it may be-and who says it's all dark and bloody? I think it's really natural to relate to a family sticking together. Look, for instance, at the popularity of a show like The Sopranos. The show comes out of the gangster movie tradition, but what is that based on if not the concept of family? Tony and his associates might be criminals, we might be horrified by their violence, but you can't help but see them as the heroes and want them to stay out of the clutches of the FBI, who are soulless. When they force a family member into informing it is they who seem to blame for the eventual outcome, not the family acting to protect itself.
I think the idea of a family name that means something strikes a chord in most humans. In HP, the Weasleys are just as clannish and recognizable as the Malfoys. Not only do the children all have red hair but the parents as well...the Weasleys have plenty of family narcissism, right down to turning their backs on the sibling who "betrayed" them (Percy). And yet this is attractive to Harry, who in many ways has taken Percy's place. Many people who hate the Malfoys dream of OBHWF. I don't believe it is just as simple as saying it's because the Weasleys love each other. Harry has other people who love him. The appeal of the Weasleys is that they are a family--even Malfoy zeroes in on that aspect of Harry's attraction to them. (Ironically, they are Malfoy's family, since he's distantly related, and their on-going feud proves.) So while the Weasleys appear to stand for a rejection of Pureblood clannish values in the way they support intermarriage and welcome Hermione and Harry into their house, the fact remains that what they really represent is exactly what the Malfoys and Blacks do: a tight knit family easily recognizable by the way they all look alike and have the same beliefs. (They even have their own House with a name: The Burrow-possibly this is all that's left of what used to be the Weasley estate?) Even Harry's own ties to his parents are often painted in narcissistic terms: he has his mother's pretty eyes and his father's fetchingly untamable hair. They are his people, as the Dursleys are Dudley's.
The Weasleys and Sirius are all dismissive of the idea of caring about marrying a Pureblood, yet the Weasleys themselves married Purebloods. None of their children are yet married. They all are now mostly associated with mostly non-Purebloods, but if they marry them it will be after the story will be over and they'll have served their purpose here. Perhaps their mates and children will grow to fit the Weasley mold, like Hermione seems ready to do, thus illustrating Ron's point that wizards would have died out without intermarriage, though they don't talk about family members who aren't magical. ETA: I now realize what a bombshell that sentence is--slip of the tongue. What I meant by it is NOT that Hermione and Ron are destined to marry. I just mean that Hermione, who already spends a lot of time with the Weasley family, seems ready to leave the Muggle world mostly behind, so when she interacts with the Weasleys it's not as a foreigner/Muggle but as a witch. And whether or not she marries any Weasley son, I think she has shown she can interact with them on their own terms. For instance, the way she's good at handling the twins, and even reminds people of Molly at times. If Hermione married Ron, or Bill, or even semi-adopted son, Harry, I think she'd be thought of as less of an outsider than, say, Fleur, because she shares so many of their values. (Though I would say she's still obviously not considered family even as much as Harry is, especially by Molly, either because she is Muggleborn or perhaps because she is female.) As it is she's not with anyone, but has, I think, defined a place for herself amongst the Weasleys who currently live at the Burrow, one based more on common values and understanding than on her being someone not brought up to know their ways.
Another thing that's kind of clever about the Weasleys is the way they give the illusion of an extended family like the Malfoy/Blacks simply by having so many children in one family. If Ron had only one sister or an only child the Weasleys would have a totally different appeal. They might appeal to Harry as individuals, but they wouldn't scream Somebody's Idea Of The Ideal Family without their many names, complicated history and in-jokes. It would be harder to imagine another person just slipping in as one more. The Blacks are proud of being Purebloods and Blacks, the Weasleys have just seemingly dropped the part about Purebloods and just concentrated more on being Weasleys.
I think it's that idea that's missing from many people's idea of fictional incest when they just see it in terms of abuse within a family: the self-preservation idea. This is where you get your power. If the Other is attacking from the outside, you fortify yourself from the inside. As the "us" becomes smaller and smaller in numbers, it becomes more incestuous. It's like...you're destroyed one way or the other. Either you die off or your culture disappears. Personally, I've never had a problem with seeing the latter as a problem. In fact, I'm now remembering one time when I was at Versailles in the Hall of Mirrors. It was so beautiful, but at the same time I was so very aware that the very fact that I was allowed in here kind of ruined it. All of us walking around in tee-shirts and sneakers--it wasn't really Versailles, not the way it was meant to be.
For now, I'm just thinking about
wayfairer put up a poll on the subject (it's f'locked so I won't link to it), which referenced several well-known works: The Fall of the House of Usher, Flowers in the Attic, Hamlet, Wuthering Heights, Shadow of a Doubt and Turn of the Screw. One aspect of incest in literature that was brought up on pandarus's lj and then here was narcissism. ceris writes: "apparently many psychologists believe that all incest is narcissistic behavior, and that this explains much of the attraction between siblings." This, of course, makes sense because one of the draws of the idea is that these people share a special bond. Much is made of this in Flowers in the Attic, certainly. That work may be completely out of the league of all the other works mentioned in the above list, which are all classics, but maybe that's helpful. Since FitA is never known for its subtly in prose or theme, it perhaps just blurts out what is subtext in better works.
Narcissism as a psychological disorder is defined as "A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy and unconscious deficits in self-esteem. But I think the definitions more at play in these works are 1. Excessive love or admiration for oneself and 2. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. In discussing HP in the other thread, there was a general agreement that incest involving the Weasley family was somehow different than that involving the Malfoys and Blacks. The Malfoys and Blacks are immediately recognizable as the kind of Gothic creations for which this sort of thing is normal, whereas with the Weasleys incest seems more linked to abuse. It seems wrong for the individuals involved while Malfoycest seems "wrong" in a way that suits everything else that's "wrong" about the Malfoys.
And what is that? Well, the Malfoys and the Blacks are both heavily associated with the HP equivalent of racism--they are obsessed with keeping their blood "pure" as well as their world. They hang their family tree on a tapestry to keep track of it, know who is "one of them" and who isn't. Any claim of Purebloodedness, in fact, assumes an interest in one's family history. Ernie Macmillan boasts that his family is pureblooded going back X generations. One of the first things Harry thinks about Ron is that he must be from one of those "old Pureblood families" described by the boy in the robe shop and Harry is right. In fact, since there appears to be just one big Pureblood family broken into subgroups that intermarry, Ron's old Pureblood family is the same as Draco's.
In canon, I love any reference to this type of connection between the two families, and I think it is there, in the subtext, as the basis of the Ron/Draco rivalry. They know who each other is on sight based on things their fathers have said. Their fathers hate each other. Arthur specifically targets Lucius with his raids, and Lucius returns the favor with Ginny. Even better, for me, is the way that the twins and Ron all seem genuinely frustrated by their poverty at times-the twins are perfectly unethical when it comes to getting money. Percy, too, seems eager to win some respect for the family name. To me, there's an underlying Pureblood pride that just isn't spoken because it so conflicts with their public stance. They do believe, imo, that they are just as good as the Malfoys--better, really-and part of that is because of their origins.
This is where I start to think about exactly what I like about the Malfoys and Blacks. In the racism thread lonicera in particular brought up the important point that racism almost always comes down to the idea (misguided as it may be) that these "other people" are threatening one's own way of life. Racism almost always makes some appeal to the way things are "supposed to be" and appeals to self-preservation. I mean, there's the racist mindset that convinced white slavers it was okay to kidnap Africans because they were "suited" to slavery and would benefit from being brought to "civilization" whichever way it happened, but it was really once they were here that we started to see racism in its familiar form, with the idea that African Americans were a threat to the white race, would "pollute" it, rise up against it. And of course from the non-white perspective it's the same thing, only sometimes it's got a more realistic basis. A Native American might be wrong to think a particular white person is out to rob him of his culture, but historically this is exactly what European Americans did. A modern American Indian therefore understandably might see himself as holding on to what he has left. This is not unlike the Southern attitude Aja described in her lj. A way of life is under attack from those people, and they are not going to let it go without a fight. Incest is hardly an unheard of theme in Southern literature--or American literature. The Gothic tradition is originally English, but American Gothic and Southern Gothic are vibrant traditions offering their own spin on it, incest and all.
I realized this is probably why I just can't be totally against families like the Malfoys and the Blacks. To me it's just natural to see something worth preserving in all that history. I *am* disturbed at the idea of Sirius wanting to toss out everything in his house. The whole "cleaning" aspect of OotP seemed aggressive to me, knowing that we're not just getting rid of cobwebs but the things important to the family Sirius hated, mostly lumped together as "dark artifacts." (And don't the Weasley twins keep some of that for themselves? Hmm...) Sirius is openly trying to destroy his family, wipe it out. When the family fights back Sirius himself is destroyed. The family sustains a blow, but there are still a few remnants left. Those remnants seem even more vulnerable now. Draco (the character so many people see as unimportant) seems to be the end of the line for both the Malfoys and the Blacks. Knowing that he is a 50/50 split of these families, the idea of him being destroyed and his inheritance scattered amongst those who don't appreciate it bothers me. It's funny...America has such a history of doing just that, of wiping out the past, forgetting it, and replacing it with the new and shiny. But I think that's also why we tend to be so fascinated with Europeans. If we would just leave something alone long enough to become ancient I think we'd be just as attached to it as we are the old houses of Europe.
The idea of a "House" is always important in classic Gothic lit, with all its incest. There's almost always a family manse, often crumbling and full of secrets, that must be preserved. And that house always refers to both the structure and the family inside. Looking at the above list, there's the House of Usher, that Dollinger mansion, Hamlet's castle, Wuthering Heights, and Bly. Three out of those five even reference the house in the title in some way. (I don't mean to diss Shadow of a Doubt by leaving it out, but it's kind of unique in that it's not exactly Gothic and the people involved are uncle and niece, so further removed than is often considered wrong...although their having the same name clearly indicates not only narcissism, but echoes of a father/daughter connection.) The houses mentioned are also all of them either literally haunted or thought to be so. Again that makes sense--the house is shared by the present and the past. It can't be ignored.
That's why, I think, I can't help but naturally root for these families to continue. We may be seeing the ragged end of a great bloodline, but what a shame to lose all that history, dark and bloody as it may be-and who says it's all dark and bloody? I think it's really natural to relate to a family sticking together. Look, for instance, at the popularity of a show like The Sopranos. The show comes out of the gangster movie tradition, but what is that based on if not the concept of family? Tony and his associates might be criminals, we might be horrified by their violence, but you can't help but see them as the heroes and want them to stay out of the clutches of the FBI, who are soulless. When they force a family member into informing it is they who seem to blame for the eventual outcome, not the family acting to protect itself.
I think the idea of a family name that means something strikes a chord in most humans. In HP, the Weasleys are just as clannish and recognizable as the Malfoys. Not only do the children all have red hair but the parents as well...the Weasleys have plenty of family narcissism, right down to turning their backs on the sibling who "betrayed" them (Percy). And yet this is attractive to Harry, who in many ways has taken Percy's place. Many people who hate the Malfoys dream of OBHWF. I don't believe it is just as simple as saying it's because the Weasleys love each other. Harry has other people who love him. The appeal of the Weasleys is that they are a family--even Malfoy zeroes in on that aspect of Harry's attraction to them. (Ironically, they are Malfoy's family, since he's distantly related, and their on-going feud proves.) So while the Weasleys appear to stand for a rejection of Pureblood clannish values in the way they support intermarriage and welcome Hermione and Harry into their house, the fact remains that what they really represent is exactly what the Malfoys and Blacks do: a tight knit family easily recognizable by the way they all look alike and have the same beliefs. (They even have their own House with a name: The Burrow-possibly this is all that's left of what used to be the Weasley estate?) Even Harry's own ties to his parents are often painted in narcissistic terms: he has his mother's pretty eyes and his father's fetchingly untamable hair. They are his people, as the Dursleys are Dudley's.
The Weasleys and Sirius are all dismissive of the idea of caring about marrying a Pureblood, yet the Weasleys themselves married Purebloods. None of their children are yet married. They all are now mostly associated with mostly non-Purebloods, but if they marry them it will be after the story will be over and they'll have served their purpose here. Perhaps their mates and children will grow to fit the Weasley mold, like Hermione seems ready to do, thus illustrating Ron's point that wizards would have died out without intermarriage, though they don't talk about family members who aren't magical. ETA: I now realize what a bombshell that sentence is--slip of the tongue. What I meant by it is NOT that Hermione and Ron are destined to marry. I just mean that Hermione, who already spends a lot of time with the Weasley family, seems ready to leave the Muggle world mostly behind, so when she interacts with the Weasleys it's not as a foreigner/Muggle but as a witch. And whether or not she marries any Weasley son, I think she has shown she can interact with them on their own terms. For instance, the way she's good at handling the twins, and even reminds people of Molly at times. If Hermione married Ron, or Bill, or even semi-adopted son, Harry, I think she'd be thought of as less of an outsider than, say, Fleur, because she shares so many of their values. (Though I would say she's still obviously not considered family even as much as Harry is, especially by Molly, either because she is Muggleborn or perhaps because she is female.) As it is she's not with anyone, but has, I think, defined a place for herself amongst the Weasleys who currently live at the Burrow, one based more on common values and understanding than on her being someone not brought up to know their ways.
Another thing that's kind of clever about the Weasleys is the way they give the illusion of an extended family like the Malfoy/Blacks simply by having so many children in one family. If Ron had only one sister or an only child the Weasleys would have a totally different appeal. They might appeal to Harry as individuals, but they wouldn't scream Somebody's Idea Of The Ideal Family without their many names, complicated history and in-jokes. It would be harder to imagine another person just slipping in as one more. The Blacks are proud of being Purebloods and Blacks, the Weasleys have just seemingly dropped the part about Purebloods and just concentrated more on being Weasleys.
I think it's that idea that's missing from many people's idea of fictional incest when they just see it in terms of abuse within a family: the self-preservation idea. This is where you get your power. If the Other is attacking from the outside, you fortify yourself from the inside. As the "us" becomes smaller and smaller in numbers, it becomes more incestuous. It's like...you're destroyed one way or the other. Either you die off or your culture disappears. Personally, I've never had a problem with seeing the latter as a problem. In fact, I'm now remembering one time when I was at Versailles in the Hall of Mirrors. It was so beautiful, but at the same time I was so very aware that the very fact that I was allowed in here kind of ruined it. All of us walking around in tee-shirts and sneakers--it wasn't really Versailles, not the way it was meant to be.