Has there ever been a woman with as much fire in her heart as Molly Weasley?
Has there ever been a woman who would fight so hard, and for so long? Has there ever been a woman with more courage?
Imagine being young and in love. Imagine having a future planned out. An easy future—the kind of future a Pureblood wizard in Britain in the seventies might expect for herself.
Imagine watching someone rise to power in your society. Someone who builds his following on the concept of Pureblood superiority. Someone who your political leaders tell you not to be afraid of, because their top priority is maintaining order. Someone who makes your half-blood friends and colleagues feel afraid. Someone who emboldens the Purebloods who’ve been waiting for an opportunity to defend what they think of as their dying heritage.
Can you imagine such a world?
That’s the world Molly Weasley found herself in.
A world in which a violent, unyielding man was rapidly rising to power on the strength of a message that ultimately protected her pureblood interests. A world in which that man could easily have taken over her section of society.
She was having children, during this time. She was holding her soft-fingered babies, each in turn, each born during the height of Voldemort’s reign. First Bill, then Charlie, then Percy, then Fred and George, then Ron, and finally, right before everything changed, Ginny. She was carrying them, and looking at the future that waited for them.
And she could have looked away.
It would have been so easy to look away. She raised the children, and Arthur did his work at the Ministry, and the Ministry said not to worry.
She could have quietly ignored the work that her brothers were doing in the Order of the Phoenix.
She could have been comfortable enough.
And wasn’t she already tired? It’s hard enough, surviving with a war on, when you have no idea who to trust and who to look out for and who is in danger, when your friends and colleagues are disappearing and you don’t know where they’ve gone or if they’re even still alive. It’s hard enough to do that, and then you have one two three four five six seven children, six boys who need feeding and cleaning and clothing and scolding and holding, plus a tiny tiny miracle girl, and there’s not enough money and your husband is working late again—you get tired.
Molly was tired. Never doubt that she was so, so tired. And she was a pureblood, wasn’t she?
She wasn’t in any danger.
She could have been comfortable.
And then Gideon and Fabian died.
Isn’t it too much to bear? Doesn’t it make you want to break, just hearing it? That woman birthed and raised seven children during a war, watched her former classmates and her friends vanish under the heel of a violent new regime of hatred, and then her brothers. Her only siblings—Gideon and Fabian. Gone.
She had Fabian’s watch, but is that enough to make up for the loss of someone she grew up with? And what does she have of Gideon?
Memories. And her twin boys, named with a nod to the initials of her brothers – Fred and George, who are too young when their uncles die to ever know what their uncles were like.
Molly, standing at two fresh-turned graves with a baby in her arms and a herd of roving boys tearing through the cemetery in their funeral best because they don’t understand the gravity of the day.
And still, there’s fighting. There’s no moment of silence for her grief, not in a war.
Everyone’s lost someone, haven’t they?
But nobody else has lost Gideon and Fabian.
The war ends with the deaths of two more people, and the survival of their baby, and Molly is safe, and her children are safe. And she can forget. She can forget everything that happened.
But she doesn’t.
She and Arthur, together—they remember. And they raise their children, their seven children, to remember too. Even if those children won’t have to remember the horrors of war, they know that “mudblood” is a dirty word, a word we don’t use. And beyond that, they are raised knowing that the idea behind the word is an idea we don’t use. The notion of a blood-traitor, the notion of purity, the very thought that a Weasley might be better than anyone else by merit of their lineage: unacceptable.
They are raised to disregard their pureblood status. They are raised to be kind to those who were unsure or afraid.
Because they are raised by Molly Weasley.
And then, just like that, the war is back on.
It happens so fast, doesn’t it? Ten years of wartime, and then, eleven years later, Molly’s last son befriends the Boy Who Lived, and at the end of the year, there it is: You Know Who is coming back, and Ron is in the hospital wing with a head injury, and it’s all happening again. Four years after that, the Dark Mark is floating in the sky over her children’s heads.
He’s back in power. Same as it ever was. Not that she’s surprised, not exactly. For years, she’s been warning them: don’t endanger your father’s position at the ministry. There will be an inquiry. Don’t cause trouble. Under it all, a constant current: can we trust them? Are we safe?
And then it happens. The war is back on.
What’s an exhausted woman to do?
What’s Molly Weasley to do?
She fights.
The Order of the Phoenix, back together, back in action. Molly Weasley at the heart of it: her husband working as a mole inside the ministry, her children demanding that they be allowed to participate. She loses Percy to the ministry—heartbreaking, infuriating, but she doesn’t miss a step. She protects the rest of her children as best she can, knowing all too well the danger involved in resistance—but she’s done her job too well, raised them to love justice and fight for what’s right, and her grip on keeping them uninvolved slips fast. And she tells them “no,” but then, who knows better than Molly Weasley how to motivate a teenager? Who knows better than she, the impact the word “no” will have on them? And she makes it known that when they disobey—when they rebel—she’ll be right there, waiting to patch them up and send them back out into the fight.
She makes the Order headquarters liveable. She feeds the Order, knowing that resistance, like any other army, travels on its belly. She passes coded messages. She harbors a fugitive—a damned surly fugitive, at that—and she offers safe harbor to those who live in fear and to those who fight.
The quiet battle, this part—the underground, the note-slipping, before the disappearances begin again. But Molly has seen it before. And when her husband is nearly killed while performing his duty as a guard for The Order, she knows what’s coming.
War.
Molly Weasley watches as so many of her loved ones dance with death. Sirius. Mad-Eye. Dumbledore. Some—her family—escape, by dint of some miracle. Ron is poisoned at Hogsmeade, and Arthur is bitten by Nagini, and Bill is attacked by a werewolf—and Ginny, her miracle daughter Ginny, don’t forget about the Chamber of Secrets and what happened to her girl there. And then, George’s ear, at the very start of that final, fateful year of fighting. The closest call yet. It could have been his head.
Molly Weasley weeps, and she watches, and she works. She never stops the quiet work that goes unnoticed—the waiting-up work, the checking-in, the comforting, the worrying, the hoping. She never stops the more visible work of mending and healing and cooking, of maintaining a safehouse, of knowing the network of safehouses where she can send those who need protecting. Even when her home, the home she and Arthur built together, the home her children were born in—even when her home is attacked by Death Eaters, she doesn’t give up the work.
She weeps, and she bends, but she never breaks. And she never gives up.
She never gives up, even after Fred.
What is enough to break a woman?
A lifetime of war? The murders of her friends and colleagues?
The near-deaths of four of her children? The abandonment of a fifth child to the very regime she is fighting?
The invasion of her home?
The loss of a child?
What is enough to break Molly Weasley?
We have yet to find out. Because Molly Weasley fights. When Fred is murdered, murdered right in front of her, murdered by the same woman who has killed so many others—and then, when that woman goes after Ginny, miracle Ginny —
Molly Weasley fights.
It’s the moment we’ll never forget, the moment she finally shouts what she’s been whispering for so many years.
Not my daughter, you BITCH.
YOU WILL NEVER TOUCH OUR CHILDREN AGAIN.
Molly Weasley rebels. She works against evil, even when it’s scary. Even when it’s risky. Even when it doesn’t benefit her or her family in the slightest.
Molly Weasley never gives up. Even when it hurts. Even in the face of immense personal loss. Even then.
Molly Weasley fights.
Sarah Gailey’s fiction has appeared in Mothership Zeta and Fireside Fiction; her nonfiction has been published by Mashable and Fantasy Literature Magazine. You can see pictures of her puppy and get updates on her work by clicking here. She tweets @gaileyfrey. Watch for her debut novella, River of Teeth, from Tor.com in 2017.
Speaking of Molly Weasley, I wonder why she didn’t get a job once all her kids were in school, since they surely could have used the money.
Thank you for this.
Oh look, tears.
Yes, thank you for this.
@Julie_K: perhaps the wizarding world isn’t any more eager than the Muggle world to hire a woman who’s been out of the work force for twenty years, no matter what skills she’s acquired along the way. Or maybe because by the time Ginny’s in school, Molly’s already got a job, volunteer though it may be: “She never stops the quiet work that goes unnoticed — the waiting-up work, the checking-in, the comforting, the worrying, the hoping. She never stops the more visible work of mending and healing and cooking, of maintaining a safehouse, of knowing the network of safehouses where she can send those who need protecting.”
You know, woman’s work. But the Order would find its work a lot harder without Molly Weasley.
To me, there were always two CMoAs in “The Flaw in the Plan,” and I have always had a hard time ranking them.
The first, chronologically, was Neville Longbottom, with a flaming hat on his head, declaring “I’ll join you when Hell freezes over! DUMBLEDORE’S ARMY!” promptly pulling the sword of Godric Gryffindor out of said flaming headwear, and using said sword to kill Voldemort’s last horcrux.
The second, you outlined in this article.
These two moments have always been among my favorite in the entire series, and I’ve always tried to determine which I liked better (like choosing which of my children I love more). To be honest, I always had a slight preference for Neville’s moment. His family history, his status as doormat for most of the first half of the series, and his rise to leadership (bringing life to the adage “Some are born great. Some achieve greatness. Others have it thrust upon them.”), along with the fact that we’ve generally seen more of Neville throughout the series than we have Molly, all gave his moment a slight edge to me.
But I was only counting Molly as far back as our first encounter with her, on the train platform in Philosopher’s stone. Clearly, she was a strong presence, both for her children, and for the Order as the second war kicked off. But she was just a bit more peripheral than Neville to me. But your article has brought to the front of my mind that she has been fighting this battle, and sacrificing family, at least as long, if not longer, than our current generation of heroes has even been alive. Yes. Molly Weasley’s moment takes the prize.
When it is all on the line. When Molly Weasley has nearly lost her husband. When Molly Weasley had her only daughter possessed by Voldemort, had one son nearly poisoned, another mauled by an untransformed werewolf, and another lose an ear. When Molly Weasley is finally reunited with all her children, only to have one ripped from her again, with far more finality than Percy’s estrangement. When the chief lieutenant of the darkest wizard of his age tries to curse her baby. Molly Weasley fights.
And heaven help the person who gets in the way of her family’s safety at that point.
I always had a thing for Molly (the character in the books. Not Julie Walters). I used to read fan fiction where she had relationships with other characters. I…don’t know what came over me :P
@1
She doesn’t get a job because
Molly Weasley fights.
She doesn’t get her hair done because
Molly Weasley fights.
She doesn’t watch Ellen because
Molly Weasley fights
She doesn’t make her dentist appointment because
Molly Weasley fights.
Oh man, this actually brought tears in my eyes. I’ve always wanted to write an essay about Harry Potter and mothers and how so many of the scenes center around mothers fighting (Lily, obviously, but also Molly and even Narcissa to some extent).
@1 – I’m a working mom (whose kids aren’t even all in school yet), so no shame about that, but there is also no shame in running a home (and I can tell you that there is a LOT to be done even if kids are in school), especially if it’s rural.
Anyway – there is a lot to think about – the balance between being a mother (and protecting those you need to protect), and fighting/risking oneself for what’s right. Not everybody can go out and be a warrior, but there are still ways to fight.
She already has a job, as other comments have pointed out. Just because the kids are in school, it doesn’t mean the work she is doing at home (you know, all that unpaid women’s work) is any less needed or valuable.
And what work she does at home. Several simultaneous sustained spells going to keep everyone fed and clothed, the house in repair, making ends meet on Arthur’s pay (which seems like it must have been low for his position, perhaps because of his politics). She kept the Burrow running, the gardens and animals and housework, while the kids were gone and her husband worked outside the home all day, and she did it with really impressive magical skill and ability. Later, she did it again in Grimauld Place while dealing with Sirius and Kreacher’s mutual surliness and the business of the Order constantly in and out, while dealing with a bunch of headstrong teenagers to boot.
On top of her own children, she practically adopted Harry, and Hermione was a frequent long-term guest, both of them getting the same share of food and presents and care as any of the redheads.
Anyone who thinks Molly Weasley didn’t have the magical muscle to take on Bellatrix LeStrange really doesn’t grasp how skilled and forceful Molly was shown to be throughout the entire series, dismissing it as “mere” housework and her a “mere” housewife.
@1 Trust me, homemaker is a job. Looking at my own Mom, I’ve always said they should be paid by the state. It’s a travesty that they’re paid nothing and so-called celebrities rake it in.
@10 All of this
Great article; it hadn’t occurred to me before that Molly had all her children during Voldemort’s first rise to power. Although Bellatrix didn’t kill Fred as far we know, she just taunted Molly about it; it was an explosion outside the Room of Requirement.
> It’s the moment we’ll never forget –
Ah, yes. The entirely unrealistic scene where Molly suddenly acquires the skill to defeat one of the most dangerous and magically talented death eaters in a long running duel. If only the Order of the Phoenix had used her prodigious powers to their advantage earlier in the series. Where was this ‘fighter’ then? Instead of ‘making Grimmauld Place liveable’ Molly should have done sentry duty in the Hall of Prophecies! She should have been one of the fighters summoned to defend her children in their battle at the Ministry! She should have defended her children – Bill, George, Fred, Ron and her precious Ginny – when the death eaters invaded Hogwarts! Instead Rowling left her fighting skills entirely absent, unmentioned, unseen, until manifested in one of the many untenable, awkward, artificial and oh so badly cliched moments of the final book.
This article sadly highlights the fact that Molly Weasley was a ‘fighter’ only in a final bad scene of a bad book and labours to amplify the actions of a secondary character who was otherwise quite unremarkable for the bulk of the series. Molly Weasley worked hard! Molly Weasley was affected by the war! Molly Weasley was a mother who cried and cleaned! Molly Weasley was one of thousands with such claims.
I agree that Molly was a marginalized character in the book and that parts of this article are conjecture, but I loved it. Molly taught her family that blood does not determine character and they lived that lesson over and over in all their actions, friendships, and battles. Timely and moving – thank you.
That’s the problem with male-centered ideas of what a hero is supposed to be like. Killing people is great, taking care of a family is boring “women’s work”. Like Ron in the last book, men only notice the importance of what women (and house elves) do when they have to do without their help. The Order had many men who wanted to go out and fight, but only Molly (and Kreacher) to make sure they have a safe and comfortable place to meet and plan. If Sirius had bothered to take care of the housework Molly could have done other work, but of course a man can’t be expected to do house elf work when there is a woman around to do it.
Birgit,
> > If only the Order of the Phoenix had used her prodigious powers to their advantage earlier in the series. Where was this ‘fighter’ then?
> That’s the problem with male-centered ideas of what a hero is supposed to be like.
There was absolutely nothing ‘male centred’ in my comment #12. I simply noted that Molly’s fighting ability was unsupported in the books, to such an extent that the one scene where she actually does fight, in Rowling’s final and by far worst novel, is an embarrassing moment so cliched and unsupported it isn’t possible to take seriously. Not because she’s a woman. Because she was written badly and because Rowling didn’t bother to plan her characterisation ahead of time, instead merely making it up as she went along.
The author of this article seems to take fighting seriously and admires same – “Molly Weasley fights … Molly Weasley fights.” That’s the grand finale of this article. Are you truly suggesting this article supports “male-centered ideas of what a hero is supposed to be like”? The gist of this article seems to laud Molly for fighting (even though she does so only in the final moments of the series; before which she ‘weeps, watches and works’ while everyone else fights).
> The Order had many men who wanted to go out and fight, but only Molly (and Kreacher) to make sure they have a safe and comfortable place to meet and plan.
Are you suggesting that the Order of the Phoenix would have disbanded – Voldemort would have taken over the wizarding world without resistance – if Kreacher and Molly Weasley had not been willing to keep house? That they were the *only ones* who could do that job? Where is your proof of this from the canon please?
The article is conjecture. I’m not sure Molly Weasly fights is where I would, as an essay writer, decide to draw my line in the sand, and I suppose, charitably, that may be what 12 suggest, as he explicates more in 15.
Part of what could be considered problematic with the Potter books as a whole is the fact that, generally speaking, when family is presented, women are written traditionally and we do not get any non-traditional families (e.g. no two males, or two females, whether coupled or not). We do not really see Dumbledore help raise his siblings, only are told that his single mother does this until her untimely death. We are only told that Dumbledore provided for them financially, for example, we do not see or hear of him nurture (as we see of Molly, as well as Petunia toward her own child and are only shown/told that she does NOT nurture her sister’s child), teach – either by example, or actual lessons imparted (as we do see with Molly, singularly and jointly with Arthur in some cases). We see Neville’s Aunt teach him, and in a form that isn’t often considered nurturing, nurture him, absent the standard unit, but we do not see his aunt do this with another female relative, or in concert with other relatives. Hermione comes from a close, nurturing whole family, but we do not really experience them, much of this is assumed (conjectured, as here).
I do think Molly is to be praised (as any mother would be anywhere with exceptional children in fiction and the Weasley children – one and all, inclusive of Percy – are certainly special on many levels). She’s unfortunately doesn’t have the amount of characterization that can be actually read/viewed of Martha Kent, and in some respects, while Arthur is a good and kind man, no one will view them as akin to the Kents, part of that is partially a role of the amount of characterization Rowling did provide for them, which is more fleshed out in the children (and one can definitely say a lot about the parents based on the children they bring into the world). No one would doubt that Sarah Rogers was a remarkable woman and a mother (even though she is rarely seen or written about), and even the most Stuckiest of shippers who might want to credit a certain James Buchanan Barnes with helping to keep Steven Grant alive and, safe, that child isn’t who he is universally viewed as a literary character simply because he survived to be experimented on. What was ‘good’ became ‘great’ – and Sarah Rogers is to be credited for that.
I do think it’s very fair to say that Molly Weasley persevered and she was magically exceedingly competent; McGonagall also wasn’t out patrolling or hexing dark wizards but that didn’t suggest in any way or form either that she could not or did not fight when the time came NOR does it suggest that she could not have been hexing any number of the most talented dark wizards all along. That’s just absurd to suggest or imply.
What is fair to say is that Rowling could have done a fuller job of showing parenting as a two parent situation, and where she did show families, the women could have been the ones to go to work and the father could have done the child-rearing (Petunia easily could have been some middle-management executive as some boring drone having her boss over for work while Vernon was cleaning and dressing the kids and fussing over some elaborate desert). Barty Crouch, Sr. could have been the one to die and take his son’s place in Azkaban while his mother was the Minister. Amos Diggory could have been the parent without a given name while his wife (Amelia?) was the one who went to the tournament with Cedric, who needles Harry as a ‘Hogwart’s Champion,’ and gets actual dialogue when his son’s dead body is brought forward. Instead, Rowling just wrote her as Mrs. Diggory and nothing more.
THIS is the failing of the series, for all it’s strength. I like this sentiments behind this piece and I agree with some of the thinking presented by 5 (the frequently posted article on Neville here being one such example) – and, certainly, when and where necessary, over her family AND her beliefs, Molly would fight (and do so more than admirably). But to characterizing her as a fighter over the series of books (and she appears in every one) is more conjecture than not.
It isn’t specifically in the comment. We usually don’t even realize why we think that fighting is great and women’s work is unimportant, it is just too “normal” in a male-dominated world. The books promote this traditional view. If Sirius had taken Molly’s role as the Order’s housekeeper, he wouldn’t have felt useless, but it never occurs to him because it is women’s work. Of course Molly isn’t the only one who could have done the work, but she is the only one who did.
Fighting doesn’t have to be dueling dark wizards. In the long run teaching children not to believe in pureblood superiority is a better way to fight an idea than killing those who agree with that idea.
_FDS wrote in #16:
> The article is conjecture. I’m not sure Molly Weasly fights is where I would, as an essay writer, decide to draw my line in the sand, and I suppose, charitably, that may be what 12 suggest, as he explicates more in 15.
I think writing an entire article that culminates in the grand finale ‘Molly Weasley FIGHTS!’ is problematical in that the climax of the piece has very little to go on – just one scene in the last five minutes of the series with the scene itself having no foundation or credence. Which is why the article spends so much time labouring so hard to exemplify as extraordinary Molly’s pedestrian activities for the 99.9% of the books that we read – “Molly Weasley weeps, and she watches, and she works”. As did practically every other member of the wizarding world; all those other mothers and fathers and children who lost members of their family. The climax of the piece falls flat because it has to take an abrupt right-hand turn from everything preceding it. Just like Rowling’s Molly-versus-Bellatrix sequence.
> I do think it’s very fair to say that Molly Weasley persevered and she was magically exceedingly competent –
Persevered, yes. ‘Magically exceedingly competent’ – no. There’s nothing that Molly does that’s ‘exceedingly competent’ until she battles Bellatrix, which is one of several reasons why there’s little credibility in that fight.
(Also, I’m not sure ‘exceedingly competent’ is the phrase I’d use, being something of an oxymoron. Molly is certainly competent. But – other than that final battle that Rowling whipped up out of thin air / no foundation – she shows no superior magical talent. She’s competent; maybe, technically, ‘exceedingly competent’ – i.e. very competent, super duper fantastically competent – but still, only competent. Until her author writes her as a brilliant duellist when she faces down Bellatrix.)
> NOR does it suggest that she could not have been hexing any number of the most talented dark wizards all along. That’s just absurd to suggest or imply.
No, it isn’t. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence, particularly with works of literature. If we’re given seven books stretching over seven years where Molly Weasley does nothing but ‘weep, watch and work’, while others all around her – her friends, her family, her children – are fighting and duelling and doing impressive magic – then it is quite correct to assume that the woman does not have those abilities. And most *certainly* we can assume that she “could not have been hexing any number of the most talented dark wizards all along’. Because if she *could* have been hexing those dark wizards … the Order would have tapped into Molly’s exceedingly brilliant abilities and asked her to do so. Like they did Arthur. And Bill. Who turned up at the end of OotP to protect the Weasley children. And turned up at the end of HBP to protect the Weasley children. While Molly stayed at home. To watch and weep.
Birgit says in #17:
> We usually don’t even realize why we think that fighting is great and women’s work is unimportant, it is just too “normal” in a male-dominated world.
You’re trying to shoehorn a gender-based polarisation on top of a comparison of ‘fighting’ versus ‘working’. These days “women’s work” is both fighting and working, as is men’s. Well, at least in large parts of the Western world. And certainly in Rowling’s world, where – at least overtly – Rowling took pains to write teachers, fighters, members of the government, members of the (fighting!) Order of the Phoenix, even the Death Eaters, as comprised of both men and women. Rowling’s world is NOT a ‘male dominated world’.
Removing the gender stereotyping, your statement becomes:
“We usually don’t even realise why we think that fighting is great and normal work is unimportant”
I think many people do. I’d argue it takes extra-special bravery, spirit, idealism, motivation to ‘do good’ and so forth to stand up and fight – where fighting doesn’t necessarily have to mean killing, or shooting, or fisticuffs, or waving a magic wand in a duel – rather than stay at home and work.
> Fighting doesn’t have to be dueling dark wizards.
In Harry’s world it does. There are lots of magical children who do not believe in pureblood superiority. In fact you could probably say that at least three-quarters of the Hogwarts populace eschew the notions of pureblood superiority (and even more if one agrees that only *part* of Slytherin is on the side of Voldemort). And yet, to fight against Riddle, to throw off his yoke, to protest his taking over the magical government … one has to fight. That’s the world that Rowling wrote. Because in her world a small group of people with magical power were able to dominate a larger populace. If that larger populace didn’t fight.
@18/madbrad: No, sorry, anyone who has studied logic or experimental design will confirm that absence of evidence is only evidence of absence in very, very specific circumstances. To simply deny that this same standard applies to works of literature is nothing more than the fallacy of special pleading. Besides, even if we accept your assertion, it actually undermines the argument you are trying to make. The books never demonstrate that the stronger wizard always wins a duel, nor that the Order is especially adept at identifying its members’ skills and deploying them optimally (in fact quite the opposite, if the myriad mistakes they make in OotP is any guide). So, by your proposed logic, both premises would be false; therefore, the reader has no suitable information whatsoever by which to gauge either Molly’s dueling skills vs. Bellatrix or how they would affect the outcome. Moreover, as Molly ends up winning more through luck than skill, arguing that she was not shown to be powerful enough to win a duel is attacking a straw man anyway.
A far more effective basis to critique this essay proceeds from combining the necessity of direct fighting to defeat the Death Eaters with the general gender balance of the wizarding world. With those in mind, that Molly (or any mother) could step into the fray during the final battle, especially after a direct attack on her favorite child, simply is not particularly notable or character-defining by itself. The duel is memorable not so much because it happened at all but rather because Molly’s fury (and profanity!) is a bit cathartic and the end result is so emotionally satisfying. But her fighting moment comes far too late, and without enough setup in previous books, for ‘fighter’ to be one of her defining character traits.
Molly’s importance to the story is so obvious as to be slightly boring: she is the nurturing mother, embodying storge in a story where ‘love is the most powerful magic’ is both theme and plot point. Harry’s emphatically shielding her from the fate that befell Lily illustrates the nature of Molly’s narrative role far more directly than does the duel that proceeds it. Her motherly aspects are very clearly in evidence through all seven books, but the questionable attempt to glean a more martial role seems to imply that the archetype isn’t quite sufficient and something more exciting is needed to make her a significant character. Just being Mom to that brood in those times provided a ton of work in terms of both plot and theme, I can’t see the necessity to seek to heap more upon her.
Ian, re your #18:
> No, sorry, anyone who has studied logic or experimental design will confirm that absence of evidence is only evidence of absence in very, very specific circumstances.
This is incorrect; it holds in general.
I don’t believe I can embed URL links in these comments (something I read in the site’s Moderation Policy; maybe I’m wrong); I just did a quick google to double-check the veracity of my proposition, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and found quite a few pages supporting this. If you can send me a personal message on this site please do so and I’ll send you the links. I’ll quote from a couple of the pages:
“But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence.”
“Absence of evidence, or the failure to observe evidence that favors a hypothesis, is evidence against that hypothesis. This is because we are significantly more likely not to see evidence for a hypothesis when it is false than not to see it when it’s true -“
Plus there’s this page, which I first read at least five years ago:
www dot oyhus dot no slash AbsenceOfEvidence dot html
I remember reading that one back then and barely being able to follow the predicate calculus of the proof. :-)
In any case, the principle/hypothesis applies; up until the final dramatic Molly-versus-Bellatrix fight that Rowling pulls out of her hat there is no evidence whatsoever that Molly has fighting skills, and in the lack of any evidence as to their existence we can conclude that she lacks same.
(Until Rowling warps her universe with deus ex machina bad writing.)
> The books never demonstrate that the stronger wizard always wins a duel –
A non-sequitur; the topic under discussion is *fighting*; should Molly fight? Not the likely outcome of the fight, but whether she should fight at all. When all around Molly fights, why is it that she does not fight? That she only “watches and weeps”? Answer: because she can’t fight.
> the reader has no suitable information whatsoever by which to gauge either Molly’s dueling skills vs. Bellatrix
Of course he does. Bellatrix is an accomplished fighter; this is an established fact in the books. And Molly never fights at all, and has no history of fighting. Until the final farcical battle at Hogwarts the reader is superbly entitled to make a high-probability assumption about their respective duelling skills (one has the skills, the other doesn’t; quite black and white).
> as Molly ends up winning more through luck than skill –
It’s a side issue, but one of the reasons why the Bellatrix/Molly bout is so outrageous is that it’s clear that, in that fight, Molly *does* have skill. She doesn’t win in the first few seconds. If she had then her victory wouldn’t have rung so false; a lucky spell, skills don’t matter, as you would like to believe. But that’s not the case. As you’ll see from the text, Molly ‘throws off her cloak as she ran, freeing her arms’ – the mark of an experienced duellist; Molly’s wand ‘slashes and twists’ – clearly she has skill; Bellatrix’s ‘smile falters’ – she is facing a serious combatant (yes, Bella, all of we readers share your surprise!); ‘the floor around the witches’ feet became hot and cracked’ – this is a *long* fight, which would favour skill over ‘luck’ more and more with each passing second; Molly’s final curse hits her ‘squarely in the chest’ – bang on target, perfect accuracy. Her final curse of *many* in a *long fight*. The exact antithesis of Molly winning with a lucky hit. She does not win ‘more through luck than skill’. She wins through skill that she never had prior to Rowling injecting this bit of melodramatic and cliched tripe.
Of course, none of Molly’s battle acumen is apparent – not even the slightest hint! – in all the seven books and seven years that precedes this scene. Which is why the scene falls flat and empty, as does this article in mirroring it, going on and on about Molly’s pedestrian talents (“she works, watches and weeps”) for all those years before the sudden miraculous makeover at the very end (“Molly Weasley fights”). In duplicating Rowling’s characterisation of Molly this article suffers the same flaws of Rowling’s writing.
> The duel is memorable not so much because it happened at all but rather because Molly’s fury (and profanity!) is a bit cathartic and the end result is so emotionally satisfying.
My mileage differs. :) The end result is simply unbelievable, given all that Rowling wrote of Molly – and didn’t write of Molly – in the thousands of pages of canon text preceding it.
> But her fighting moment comes far too late, and without enough setup in previous books, for ‘fighter’ to be one of her defining character traits.
Agreed. Which is why Rowling’s work with Molly, and this article mirroring same, is distinctly *not* ‘satisfying’.
> Just being Mom to that brood in those times provided a ton of work in terms of both plot and theme, I can’t see the necessity to seek to heap more upon her.
I agree that Rowling should have left Molly alone; she’d done a good job of depicting her as the classic mother, albeit one who ‘works, watches and weeps’. But just as this article’s author finishes with her ‘MOLLY WEASLEY FIGHTS! … Molly Weasley fights’ climax, so too did Rowling overextend and try to do too much with the character, making her suffer as a result due to the abrupt and unbelievable course correction.
@20/madbrad: As far as I know, the original aphorism is “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Apparently it’s by Martin Rees although it is often attributed to Carl Sagan. When people claim that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, they want to contradict the original quote or play on it.
I’m amused by the troll-a-riffic irony of claiming “my quick Google search only turned up links that support my view” as evidence in a philosophical burden-of-proof discussion! I’ve found that the Wikipedia articles on evidence of absence and absence of evidence explain things quite clearly, with helpful quotes and citations to useful primary sources.
In writing an original work of fiction, an author has only so many pages in which to create a world ex nihilio and thus, out of necessity, she will omit many details that could be useful/relevant and instead focus on those that she deems essential (or at least interesting and non-obvious). Storytellers since time immemorial have relied upon the audience to use a reasonable mix of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning to fill in the gaps. Clear contradictions are a problem, but the failure to mention a skill or trait until the moment it is required should generally be considered conservation of detail rather than narrative failure, especially if you actually are trying to enjoy the story.
Since Molly’s maternal traits are illustrated frequently throughout the series, but she’s only shown to duel once, it is quite fair to challenge the OP’s assertion that they should all be considered of the same level of importance when assessing the character: the imbalance in reference count is a clue to which one should be considered more significant. The far more subjective assessment of whether those dueling skills represent a crowning moment of awesome or a Flying Snowman is mostly a separate issue—and one unresolvable via any attempt at rational analysis.
I think the word “fight” at the ending of this article includes its metaphorical as well as the literal meaning. I agree that her role in the books isn’t really that of a physical fighter despite that scene in the Battle of Hogwarts. However, you cannot deny that she was faithfully supporting the Order logistically among other ways. It’s just like in an army the people in charge of logistics, intelligence or to provide moral support play just as an important role as the people fighting on the front line.
The most impressive thing is why does she have to resist Voldemort when she does not have to which is related to the theme of choice. She and the rest of the Weasleys actually put themselves in far more danger than if they just passively accepted Voldemort’s regime who wouldn’t really hurt them in any meaningful way.
The hatred Molly gets for being a housewife and the constant dismissal of the amazing amount of work involved to raise seven kids (and two more after the third book!) especially with the twins always pulling off one prank after the other. Sure a case could be made it might be optimal to have less children given their financial circumstances, but that was well with her right as a parent.
As for Molly killing Bellatrix, please remember that:
1) Bellatrix severely underestimated her opponent ever heard the saying “pride comes before a fall”? and
2) Molly was fighting because her favourite child was in danger which motivated and determined. Yes, Molly did weep at the sight of her children’s dead body because that was her greatest fear which she used to motivate her in that fight.
Also just because one person is theoretically better at fighting than the other doesn’t mean they will necessarily win, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many upset victories in history. As for Molly never using fighting spells before, please note she was capable of doing impressive magic in the household (non-verbal) and why is it that the magic required for combat spells are so much more difficult and advanced than the household spells?
JanaJansen & #21:
> As far as I know, the original aphorism is “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. … When people claim that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, they want to contradict the original quote or play on it.
Right. There seems to be a lot of confusion about it, viz my discussion with Ian. People have adopted the original quote too generally/imprecisely and too thoughtlessly, thinking it covers every situation. It doesn’t.
Ian & #22:
> I’m amused by the troll-a-riffic irony –
Be careful throwing the word ‘troll’ around, Ian; it leaves an impression that you’re trying to throw mud at folk who dare to disagree with you. That paves the way for ad hominem attacks and a general decline in the quality of the discussion. Keep it clean!
> – of claiming “my quick Google search only turned up links that support my view” –
You’ve slipped the word ‘only’ in there as if I’d said that; you are misquoting me. I said I’d found ‘quite a few pages’ supporting the logic that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I didn’t say there weren’t other contradictory pages out there. As per my reply to JanaJensen, above, a lot of folk don’t seem to understand the original aphorism or its limitations.
Regarding the Wiki links; if you’d read them more carefully you’ll see that they do not apply here with Molly. Your ‘argument from ignorance’ page addresses how a ‘null result’ can be used to infer an evidence of absence if the tests for the evidence are reliable, versus “when one simply lacks proper means of detection”. In another section it repeats this – “Evidence of absence is the successful variation: a conclusion that relies on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something”.
With our assessment of Molly’s fighting prowess we have a near perfect means of conducting our reliable tests. The HP canon text is finite and immutable. It is our ‘specific knowledge’ that your Wiki page concedes can allow one to make our inference. Easy to see in the books anywhere where Molly fights, talks of fighting, or we are told of her fighting prowess. But for 6.95 long books and years of Harry’s life there is a complete absence of evidence as to Molly having any fighting ability at all (I’ll dismiss your ‘omission of details’ argument below). If Molly had had even a hint of fighting ability you can bet the author of this article would have found and extolled it. Instead she had to fluff up Molly’s ‘working, watching and weeping’ over 98% of the HP series, leaving the final effort quite flat.
Your ‘evidence of absence’ Wiki page likewise concedes the parameters which allow that conclusion to be drawn from an absence of evidence. It’s even summarised by their quotation of Copi at the top of the page – “In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” Again, our examination of the HP literature provides exactly those circumstances that if a “certain event had occurred” – Molly Weasley fighting. Or talking about her fighting skills. Or anyone else in the entire HP universe mentioning her fighting prowess. Even once. – “evidence of it could be discovered”.
But there is no such evidence. Which allows us to draw the ‘perfectly reasonable’ conclusion that we have positive proof that Molly Weasley just couldn’t fight.
Until that one deus ex machina moment at the end of a bad book where Rowling just threw in every cliched melodramatic overused scene she wanted to inject regardless of the lack of fit – lack of evidence! – that preceded it in her books.
You proceeded to try and explain away this complete lack of evidence as being due to a ‘necessity’ that all such details were deliberately omitted by Rowling, relying on we readers to use deductive reasoning to ‘fill the gaps’. This is your attempt to show that our ‘tests’ for evidence aren’t reliable, can’t be depended on to find that evidence, and so we can’t then proceed to claim evidence of absence.
That’s nonsense.
Firstly, there is absolutely no material, no clues, no hints, whatsoever, in all those thousands of pages preceding the Molly-Bellatrix bout, upon which readers could “use a reasonable mix of deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning to fill in the gaps” and infer that Molly was a prodigious warrior. By the way, that’s a challenge, Ian. It’s a ‘burden of proof’ moment for you this time. Please tell us how, in the HP books, a reader could *reasonably* (your word, Ian) make such an inference. I don’t believe you can.
But it’s even worse than that, Ian. Not only can we perform a reliable test for the absence of any evidence as to Molly’s fighting prowess; Rowling gave us scenes which even *highlighted* that absence, scenes which virtually guaranteed that any such evidence would have been presented wherein. I refer to the scenes I mentioned in my earlier comments – the battle at the Ministry at the end of OotP, when various Weasleys flocked to save the children (including two Weasleys; including Molly’s ‘favourite’ Ginny); and then the battle at Hogwarts at the end of HBP when Weasleys again came to defend the kids (again including the Weasley children). In both cases the Order came to the rescue, with members coming to fight in defence of the Weasley/other children. In both cases Molly Weasley was a member of the Order. In both cases Molly did *not* appear to fight. Logical inference – Molly Weasley was not a fighter.
That’s not just an absence of evidence as to her fighting prowess. In those scenes Rowling put all the fighters of the Order together and drew a big arrow with the label ‘these are the fighters of the Order of the Phoenix’ pointing right at them. And Molly wasn’t there.
Likewise, when it came to housekeeping – like cleaning out Grimmauld Place in GoF – Molly was the Order Member highlighted by Rowling to perform those duties. She also attended the Order Meetings held at those premises, the only times we saw the other members (except Sirius).
There’s probably a nice mathematical/logical way to state the above – that not only is there a complete absence of evidence as to Molly’s fighting experience, not only can we reliably conduct tests to search for same in the books, there are also scenarios where exactly that evidence would have surely been disclosed!!
I’ll phrase the principle as “Brad’s Rule” – if it doesn’t walk like a duck, when surrounded by ducks; and it doesn’t quack like a duck, when surrounded by ducks; then it probably isn’t a duck. :) Molly is one of the few (can you think of any other?) members of the Order of the Phoenix who *never* rallies to the call to defend her children! Even when her husband, her oldest son, do so respond. Members of the Weasley family, members of the Order of the Phoenix, rush to fight to protect Weasley children. Molly Weasley is a member of the Weasley family, a member of the Order of the Phoenix, and she does NOT fight to protect her children. And there is nothing explaining this. Thus there is only one deduction that one can make – Molly Weasley can’t fight.
You’re right that Rowling indeed chose to omit any mention of fighting skills, experience or moments for Molly. *Because they didn’t exist*. I’m sorry, you can’t wave your hands and make your “reasonable mix of deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning to fill in the gaps” out of thin air and the white space between her words. Insisting you know more than the author – who deliberately eschewed inserting Molly in scenes that were purpose-built to feature her – had she been a fighter! – is not acceptable.
> The far more subjective assessment of whether those dueling skills represent a crowning moment of awesome or a Flying Snowman is mostly a separate issue—and one unresolvable via any attempt at rational analysis.
Nah, disagree with you here also. Molly’s win over Bellatrix would be a ‘crowning moment of awesome’ .. if it was believable. Given all of the discussion above – it just isn’t. Rowling didn’t properly prepare the character. The ‘moment’ was one of deus ex machina, a literary device accepted as a hallmark of bad writing.
If readers still insist on seeing it as a ‘crowning moment of awesome’ (and many do!) they have to still accept that it’s based on thin air and white space.
It’s not a ‘Flying Snowman’ either. There is no succession of scenes demonstrating Molly’s developing martial abilities. The snowman wasn’t “walking, then running, and then flying”. Molly went from zero to a hundred with no stages in between. See ‘deus ex machina’ above. Which is why the scene falls flat; both in Rowling’s work and this article which faithfully mirrors it.
Torrent56, your #23:
> Bellatrix severely underestimated her opponent ever heard the saying “pride comes before a fall”
At first, yes. But their battle is a *long* battle, and in the very first sentence of it “Bellatrix Lestrange’s smile faltered and became a snarl”. For most of the fight Bellatrix – right-hand woman of the world’s most powerful dark lord and feared death eater and fighter – was taking Molly Weasley deadly seriously.
> Molly was fighting because her favourite child was in danger which motivated and determined.
And Bellatrix was fighting for her life. “Both women were fighting to kill.” Enough motivation for both.
(Also, motivation doesn’t usually influence outcome anyway; my being motivated to be a great painter – or great fighter – won’t necessarily give me a quick ride to that state. It won’t grant me artistic skill, martial arts or suddenly gift me with knowledge of duelling spells!)
> Also just because one person is theoretically better at fighting than the other doesn’t mean they will necessarily win.
The longer the fight the higher the probability that the best fighter will prevail. And that fight went for a long time – long enough for the floor to “become hot and cracked”.
Long enough for us all to reject the battle as anything but a bit of Rowling self-indulgence, bolting a ‘crowning moment of awesome’ into her story despite the fact she hadn’t put up any scaffolding to support it. This article, contrasting fighting Molly with the one who, for almost the entire series, ‘works, watches and weeps’, serves only to highlight that poor writing.
The argument is about the difference between a closed world assumption and open world assumption. In a closed world assumption everything that isn’t explicitly mentioned as being true is false, while in an open world assumption something that isn’t explicitly mentioned can be true or false until you get more information.
You see some events as indirect evidence of absence of Molly’s fighting skills, while others are using an open world interpretation that says if we are not explicitly told that she can’t fight we don’t know if she can until we get more information (see her fight).
In the final fight Molly is protected by Harry’s sacrifice spell, which could explain why she can win even if the isn’t as experienced a fighter as Bellatrix.
birgit, your #25:
> The argument is about the difference between a closed world assumption and open world assumption.
I’d say that Rowling’s series is an ‘open world’, and initially Harry – the limited third-person narrator – is learning all about that world. He doesn’t know at the outset whether Molly is a fighter or not.
But as the books progress the continuing lack of any evidence whatsoever about Molly’s fighting prowess – contrasted with a mass of such information on all the other members of the Order – suggests more and more that Molly simply lacks that prowess. There is no reason for that information to be hidden from Harry while exactly the same information on the other members of the Weasley family and members of the Order, characters sharing the pages and scenes with Molly, is disclosed and made clear.
We can attach the label ‘open world’ to the series, but it’s just a label; it doesn’t alter the reasoning about absence of evidence implying evidence of absence.
> In the final fight Molly is protected by Harry’s sacrifice spell, which could explain why she can win even if the isn’t as experienced a fighter as Bellatrix.
No. Harry’s sacrifice to Voldemort for the castle defenders protect them from *him*, the dark lord, only:
“Don’t you get it? I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people – “
“But you did not!”
” – I meant to, and that’s what did it. I’ve done what my mother did. They’re protected from you. Haven’t you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can’t torture them. You can’t touch them. You don’t learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?”
As you can see from the above, it’s only Riddle from whom Harry’s allies are protected. He never did a Lily and offered himself as a sacrifice to Bellatrix, and she never ‘killed’ him in any such sacrifice.
Lots of the good guys were killed by Riddle’s death eaters; clearly there was no protection for them from anyone except the dark lord.
(There are massive plot holes in the whole like-Lily’s-protection-only-different but this is not the place to explore them all. :-))
To be fair, actual fighting skills have always been irrelevant in HP. Which is how Harry and other kids, apart from Hermione, have been coasting along on the spells that they were taught in their 3rd (?!) year by Lupin and the minimal amount of self-study that Harry did under her direction for the Triwizard tournament, yet routinely winning against the Death Eaters, who really should have crushed them. As it was, Snape was the only one, IIRC, who actually blocked/deflected spells directed at him and used non-verbal spells to his advantage in combat, even though all skilled wizards were supposed to be able to do so.
I never liked this illogical aspect of the setting, but there you are. Molly’s victory over Bellatrix fits very well into the “all you need is love and pluck” narrative of HP. And yes, Molly was a competent witch, since you are supposed to have good grades to become a Head Girl. And most subjects we have seen taught in Hogwarts _should_ translate into valuable practical skills in the wizarding world, including the combat ones – as they did in Hermione’s case.
Of course, Weasleys being poor, when the parental couple were both skilled wizards, and we have seen items permanently turned into other stuff, enchanted, perfectly repaired, being made bigger and smaller , didn’t make sense either…
Finally, “an army marces on it’s stomach”, so Molly’s organisational and logistics efforts with Order of the Phoenix would have been very valuable… if the Order itself had been capable of accomplishing anything of worth, which they weren’t, alas.
Hello Isilel,
> To be fair, actual fighting skills have always been irrelevant in HP. Which is how Harry and other kids, apart from Hermione, have been coasting along on the spells that they were taught in their 3rd (?!) year … yet routinely winning against the Death Eaters, who really should have crushed them.
I don’t think you can extrapolate too far with the kids’ successes. Fifth year they held off the death eaters at the Ministry for a while … by running away. Not by winning fights. Then they were finally defeated – or on the ropes – when the fighters of the Order (no Molly Weasley in sight!) came in to save them.
Sixth year they again only managed to run away, or not engage – Hermione and Luna didn’t fight, Ginny only dodged spells, Harry was completely outclassed by Snape. I forget what Neville and Ron did but I’m pretty sure they didn’t actually win any fights; the death eaters all got away.
Seventh year the Trio spent their infinite camping trip running away.
I think Harry & Co. did better agains their *peers* – Draco, the Inquisition squad and so forth – but not adults. Against the latter they fared just as badly as Molly Weasley would have. :-)
> Molly’s victory over Bellatrix fits very well into the “all you need is love and pluck” narrative of HP.
As I say, I don’t think that ‘love and pluck’ narrative really exists. As well as the examples of such being much less substantial than what you think, I also believe there’s lots of examples of bona fide fights with bona fide risks and skills in the books. Basically any fight with an adult, really. Plus the classics like Dumbledore versus Riddle in OotP.
Finally, if the ‘all you need is love and pluck’ narrative of HP *was* that strong … how did Riddle win in the first place? How did his death eaters keep winning? Why were they a threat at all?
No. The kids mainly ran away – from adults – and the adult battles were all most certainly based on skill and fighting ability. Like the Bellatrix-Molly bout. Only Molly’s skills were brand-new and a surprise to us all. :-)
(Oh! A new bit of ‘evidence of absence’ … Bellatrix herself – a member of the wizarding world for decades – was surprised at Molly’s engaging in battle – “Bellatrix spun on the spot, roaring with laughter at the sight of the new challenger”. Clearly Bellatrix, like everyone else, had never seen Molly in a serious fight.)
> Molly was a competent witch, since you are supposed to have good grades to become a Head Girl.
I’ve done a quick search on Google, looked up Molly on the HP wiki, couldn’t find any mention of her being Head Girl. Lily, sure. Molly, no. Can you supply the canon text showing this please?
> Finally, “an army marces on it’s stomach”, so Molly’s organisational and logistics efforts with Order of the Phoenix would have been very valuable –
… except in a fight against one of the most dreaded death eaters, Voldemort’s right-hand woman, Bellatrix Lestrange.
Hi Brad, in response to your earlier comment
“At first, yes. But their battle is a *long* battle, and in the very first sentence of it “Bellatrix Lestrange’s smile faltered and became a snarl”. For most of the fight Bellatrix – right-hand woman of the world’s most powerful dark lord and feared death eater and fighter – was taking Molly Weasley deadly seriously.”
OK, so it shows that Bellatrix wants to kill Molly which nobody disputed. If Bellatrix was taking Molly that seriously, then why did she have the spare time and energy to taunt Molly about killing her and what will happen to Ginny afterwards sounding as though she was taking Molly for granted? Why did she laugh off at Molly’s angry response that Bellatrix wouldn’t touch her children again?
The key point is that Bellatrix was quite lax at the critical point in the duel. It doesn’t matter whether she was serious the other time; in a duel to death situation, even if someone relaxed for a few seconds and became complacent, that could have fatal consequences because the opponent can exploit those few seconds to their advantage. So yes, she was proud and arrogant during those few seconds, and that proved to be disastrous for her.
“And Bellatrix was fighting for her life. “Both women were fighting to kill.” Enough motivation for both.”
It’s still a different level of motivation. Molly was fighting not only for herself, but for her family as well and with losing them being her worst fear. Bellatrix was only fighting for herself. I agree this isn’t the most important factor in that fight though.
“(Also, motivation doesn’t usually influence outcome anyway;”
Sorry but if you’re talking about fights here then this is just stupid. Soldiers or fighters who are motivated to fight are much more likely to overcome their opponent than those who are indifferent. A key part of any functional army is for the officers to instil strong sense of morale within the troops and why do you think ordinary soldiers are filled with patriotic messages as part of their training?
“my being motivated to be a great painter – or great fighter – won’t necessarily give me a quick ride to that state. It won’t grant me artistic skill, martial arts or suddenly gift me with knowledge of duelling spells!)”
True but it’s really irrelevant to this discussion unless you’re suggesting Molly has no knowledge of duelling spells whatsoever. Otherwise, see above. Also in a fight it is really more about using duelling spells effectively and reacting correctly to the changing situation rather than knowledge and one can be a very strong fighter with a limited arsenal of spells if she knows how to effectively use them.
“The longer the fight the higher the probability that the best fighter will prevail. And that fight went for a long time – long enough for the floor to “become hot and cracked”.”
You mean the fighter with more endurance and stamina which is not always the better fighter. We actually have evidence that Bellatrix lacks patience and is easily angered in fights – look at the incident in Department of Mysteries where Lucius was playing the role of the level-headed leader among the Death Eaters.
Your whole argument here also rest on the shaky premise that everything else is equal which is clearly wrong in that fight. Your statement would have some truth if Bellatrix stayed focused the entire fight but she did not. Just before the end of the duel Bellatrix showed her arrogance and overconfidence by taunting Molly and dismissing her threats with a mocking laugh showing at that moment she let her guard down.
Anyway, what other evidence do you have that the fight went for a long time? The floor becoming hot and cracked could be simply a consequence of the intense killing spells each women tried to cast at one another rather than an indication of the length of time of fight.
“Long enough for us all to reject the battle as anything but a bit of Rowling self-indulgence, bolting a ‘crowning moment of awesome’ into her story despite the fact she hadn’t put up any scaffolding to support it.”
Read the part in my last post which you ignored about her ability to perform many different household spells non-verbally and how she is one of the few people we see doing consistently and successfully. Again, could you explain why is it households spells are simpler than combat spells especially as the education program at Hogwarts suggest otherwise? As for Molly not going out to battle Death Eaters beforehand, perhaps Molly’s skill as a housewife and providing logistical support to the Order was more important than any combat skills she has because no other Order members have shown the ability to effectively complete those household chores right?
However I do agree that Rowling wrote that moment in to try to show the reader how awesome Molly is just like Hermione’s Cinderella moment at the Yule Ball where she got the hottest guy around when the pretty Patil twins had to do with dates of last resort.
Also if you want a really prominent example of Rowling self-indulgence, look no further than her attempts to make her books more racially diverse retrospectively over the course of the black Hermione controversy (to be clear, there are no problems with a black actor playing Hermione or with racial diversity in the original books given the context).
@24/madbrad: Almost the entirety of you argument rests upon the fallacy of equivocation: you are implicitly using ‘evidence of absence’ as interchangeable with ‘proof of nonexistence’ and ‘lowered probability of existence’. They are not. The logical formalisms you cite only prove that failure to observe some A implied by B lowers the chance of B‘s existing relative to your preconceptions; reducing that probability to zero requires further proof that those preconceptions are true in some absolute sense and that there is no way for you to have overlooked A had it been present. But those additional conditions are generally impossible to achieve in analyzing literature because there is no independent way to corroborate your assumptions regarding unstated story elements; you may only make inferences from what the author has chosen to reveal. Now, if you prefer stories in which the author shows or tells about character traits well before they become relevant to key moments of the story, that is certainly your prerogative; but if instead the author chooses to illustrate such traits only when needed, well, that is merely a storytelling style you don’t like rather than necessarily a sign of poor writing.
@29/torrent56: JKR has explicitly stated when and why she chose Molly to take down Bellatrix. Pretty much aligns with things you (and others) have stated in this thread. (Spoiler alert: she doesn’t agree with madbrad’s analysis. :-) Considering that her goal was to further illustrate themes that had been part of the story since early in the first book, I’m not quite sure that describing the scene as self-indulgent is quite fair.
It seems to me that the Molly-Bellatrix duel may be blown out of proportion a bit, as its end result just isn’t that important to the overall plot. Cutting short Harry’s understandable but ill-advised attack on Bellatrix was critical, but whether she was alive or dead at the moment Harry revealed himself to Voldemort probably wasn’t. Molly’s victory is mostly important symbolically and thematically. I think @23/torrent56 is correct that this post works much better if you interpret ‘fight’ to be less about the dueling skills and more about the willingness, despite obstacles and personal risk, to step up and do whatever she can in support of those people and ideas she holds dear.
I’ve always said that Bellatrix was stupid not to take Molly seriously, as she is likely to know many spells that Bella does not, and know them well enough to perform without having to think about them.
Someone who can prepare a chicken for cooking with a wave of their wand would have little enough trouble doing the same to you, since you are not so very different from a chicken, at least not in any way which would count. As for peeling a pot full of potatoes, how well are you going to function without your skin?
That might also explain why the floor became “hot and cracked” if Molly was using some variation of a “roasting spell” on Bella…
Hi Ian,
I am glad you agree with the reasoning behind this scene and the interpretation of the word fight in the article. I read that interview by JKR and I feel at least some of the people who objected to that scene wanted Neville to kill Bellatrix mainly because he isn’t a housewife (talk about contempt of housewives!) or he is the heroic resistance leader at Hogwarts that year and would have the skills to win against Bellatrix. I found that to be rather hypocritical considering that even in the previous book HBP he was mainly used as comic relief so why is it that a teenager who still had difficulties in class in the previous year being suddenly able to defeat Voldemort’s second-in-command more realistic than Molly?
Well, I agree the Bellatrix/Molly duel really is a secondary scene compared to Harry’s showdown with Voldemort a bit later on. If Bellatrix was merely captured it wouldn’t really make any difference and yes I think Rowling tried to use the scene in a symbolic sense.
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear here I didn’t say that scene is an example of self-indulgence by the author, only that it was meant to show Molly’s awesomeness by the author, there’s a difference between the two in my mind.
@NotACat
Well said, NotACat, these are more reasons why Molly killing Bellatrix within the context is not unrealistic.
Just want to visit this inactive thread again to add in a few comments.
In the actual canon, the impact on Molly (and maybe her family) of her brothers’ deaths is skimmed over and not examined in detail because the story is so focused on Harry and how each character in the story relates to him. It could have been a very interesting subplot. This article could also have explored how Molly’s values ended up shaping each of her children, like how she told Ron all about scarlet women in GoF.
Brad, if you’re still here, people have given lots of good reasons as to why Molly defeating Bellatrix in that specific scene makes sense since your last visit and I would like to hear your response to them. If you can’t, I can only assume you lost the argument.
With regards to your assertion that the kids didn’t have much success against the Death Eaters:
In fifth year I don’t see why running away means they were useless especially as they actually held their own against the Death Eaters for a while (and won the fights despite casualties to themselves obviously). They were outnumbered two to one so staying to fight isn’t brave and noble, it’s suicidal. Their goal was to run away and raise the alarm.
In sixth year Ron and Neville was fighting Death Eaters, and so was Ginny (you know dodging hexes is part of the fighting right?). They didn’t fare any better or worse than the adult Order of the Phoenix members.
In the “infinite camping trip” in seventh year they were on a mission to find and destroy Horcruxes, fighting with Death Eaters will only distract them from their mission and slow it down as Hermione told Ron during Battle of Hogwarts. It was in their interesting to avoid fighting and running away where possible. You also forgot before that they won a battle against the Death Eaters at the Tottenhem Court café when the Death Eaters had the element of shock and surprise on their side.
Also you might want to not go around claiming DH is easily the worst book considering that one of the main criteria of judging the books, is how well they can entertain the readers and how enjoyable they are which are fairly subjective criterion.
“The key point is that Bellatrix was quite lax at the critical point in the duel. It doesn’t matter whether she was serious the other time; in a duel to death situation, even if someone relaxed for a few seconds and became complacent, that could have fatal consequences because the opponent can exploit those few seconds to their advantage. So yes, she was proud and arrogant during those few seconds, and that proved to be disastrous for her.”
That maybe all the explanation we need. Because even Sirious only lost because he lost concentration as he was laughing moments before… but I too agree that Molly should comment on later, that she was lucky. or something like that to dampen our eyebrows being raised.
Torrent 56, if book 7 was enjoyable is arguable since it is part of 6 awesome predecesors. But in itself? who knows. I myself despised the final clash between Voldy and Harry, and the detective theory behind it.
Brad, where are you we miss you. this thread ended to soon…
@34: In the book, Harry himself points out the parallel to Sirius just before Molly casts her curse at Bellatrix. (Quite literally in the previous sentence!) The curse itself is implied to be a Stunning Spell that hits her
and her reaction seems akin to having a heart attack; this is actually plausible, as there are documented cases in which an ill-timed blow to the chest (e.g. a line drive during a youth-league baseball game) causes a disrythmia resulting in death. So good luck, rather than some previously unmentioned power, is a pretty solid explanation for Molly’s victory here.
@@@@@the-schwartz-be-with-you
Good to see we agree on most points here.
“Torrent 56, if book 7 was enjoyable is arguable since it is part of 6 awesome predecesors. But in itself? who knows. I myself despised the final clash between Voldy and Harry, and the detective theory behind it. “
Yeah I think Harry became too full of himself at times and there was no logical reason at all for him to confront Voldemort in a Hall full of other people and people always forgot he won that duel because of some random wandlore rule that I couldn’t make sense of (I presume this is what you meant by the detective theory).
I feel whether a book is awesome or not really depends on the reader. I for example strongly disagree that HBP is an awesome predecessor since it is a basically a story where the hero did nothing active in the fight against Voldemort and prefers to think about Quidditch and girls all the time, cheat in his potions class repeatedly and hex people for fun like his father. Not to mention all the main characters changed for the worse and the abysmal romance writing at times. For those reasons among others I think DH is a better book despite its own problems.
Brad appears to be determined to hate DH in all ways possible but when someone presents an argument he couldn’t counter prefers to disappear rather than concede the point.
@36/torrent56: “no logical reason at all for him to confront Voldemort in a hall full of other people” Harry was initially avoiding a public showdown, only revealing himself when he tossed aside his Invisibiilty Cloak so he could cast a Shield Charm with enough power to save Molly from Voldemort. Harry’s lack of a carefully thought-out plan for the final confrontation is pretty consistent with the rest of the series.
”hex people for fun like his father” Huh? IIRC, the only student he hexed or cursed in HBP was Draco Malfoy, and while Harry was certainly reckless he sure as hell didn’t do it ‘for fun’.
”won that duel because of some random wandlore rule” The basic mechanics of that rule were established in the first book and were a plot point following the fifth (i.e. partially explaining how Neville was able to level up in years 6 & 7), so while the particulars of the Elder Wand may have been a late over-complication the essentials of how that duel played out weren’t a big stretch. Moreover, even if that was the only factor that determined the victor, it is rather reductive to ignore all the choices and events that led up to a situation where such a seemingly minor aspect could be decisive.
“whether a book is awesome or not really depends on the reader” This, this, a thousand times this! Good fiction requires engagement, the text is only a starting point. If you are unwilling to make some accommodations and fill in some of the gaps, well, then it’s not the author’s fault that if can’t put together a satisfying interpretation. While there are certainly aspects of any work that may be assessed in a somewhat objective fashion, I think in most cases people mention these as after-the-fact rationalizations for why they did or did not like it.
Hi Ian, it’s been a long since the last discussion.
Harry/Voldemort confrontation – I thought it was great of him to save Molly from Voldemort so it wasn’t what I was talking about. All I am saying is that Voldemort was supposedly powerless to hurt more people so they could incapacitate him and that speech going back and forth between them about Snape and wandlore doesn’t feel very real to me. And honestly it doesn’t really matter who won that duel in the determination of the outcome of the war by that time anyway.
EDIT: I just thought of something else here. Harry disclosing to everyone he’s the Elder Wand’s master is incredibly stupid and only invites it’s trouble; it’s not much different to what the first brother did in the three brother’s tale.
Harry DID hex people for fun in HBP. Not Draco Malfoy, but Crabbe and Filch earlier using the HBP spells and they weren’t attacking him or provoking him. Sure they aren’t pleasant people, but there’s still no excuse to do it. You might have missed it because it was just one line at the beginning of chapter 12. Extract:
“There had been a hex that caused toenails to grow alarmingly fast (he had tried this on Crabbe in the corridor, with very entertaining results); a jinx that glued the tongue to the roof of the mouth (which he had twice used, to general applause, on an unsuspecting Argus Filch);”
“won that duel because of some random wandlore rule” The basic mechanics of that rule were established in the first book and were a plot point following the fifth (i.e. partially explaining how Neville was able to level up in years 6 & 7), so while the particulars of the Elder Wand may have been a late over-complication the essentials of how that duel played out weren’t a big stretch”
Firstly, I thought Neville leveling up could also be explained by his preference for hard work much more so than Harry but that’s another discussion.
It wasn’t the duel itself but rather how Harry obtained mastery of the Elder Wand that doesn’t make much sense. Based on my understanding Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore and became the Master meaning we are to assume Dumbledore has never been defeated before. OK we can accept that. Then, apparently nobody has bested Malfoy before the Malfoy Manor incident until Harry took his wand from him which apparently is enough to transfer the allegiance of the wand to him. We are supposed to believe you can change the allegiance of a wand that’s not used in combat? Right…
Also why do you think we never heard about wands changing masters until the last book even though we had plenty of wizard duels beforehand?
“Moreover, even if that was the only factor that determined the victor, it is rather reductive to ignore all the choices and events that led up to a situation where such a seemingly minor aspect could be decisive.”
Nobody is denying what Harry did leading up to the situation but it doesn’t change the fact he won that duel because of wandlore rules that came out at last minute.
I agree people should understand that authors may not want to spell out every little detail to them and they should use their own thinking and reasoning a bit as well.
@38/torrent56: You’re right, I had forgotten about Crabbe & Filch. I could argue that the paragraph’s very obscurity underscores that it was a fairly venal sin, but I’ll essentially concede your point. (Although Harry wasn’t nearly as bad about it as was James.)
Neville’s skills were notably improved even fairly early in HBP and he pointed out that he had finally acquired a wand of his own. I believe the author intended to draw attention to that aspect. I have no idea whether it was intended to be general foreshadowing of wandlore or if she had already planned out the Elder Wand thread by that point; the latter is plausible since many of the key elements of HBP were actually originally intended for CoS.
Draco, like his family, was essentially a prisoner at Malfoy Manor for months following their flight following Dumbldore’s death. It is completely feasible that he never engaged in another duel until Harry showed up. Fortuitous coincidence? Certainly, but internally consistent, at least.
I felt it was strongly implied in DH that the one of the aspects that made the Elder Wand so special was that it had unique ownership rules. There’s no question that it would have been better for JKR to at least have hinted at such things in an earlier book, but in terms of in-story mechanics I don’t see any inconsistencies (especially since we have the catch-all handwave of “it’s magic” ;-).
Finally, I’m not so sure the outcome of Voldemort and Harry’s duel was irrelevant. Voldy wasn’t powerless, he had simply been brought back to more standard levels of wizarding power. His fatal mistake was not to realize that Harry had multiple levels of protection against him. But in broader terms it was absolutely important for him to be gone: Harry’s victory had symbolic power if nothing else. And—since this thread is supposed to be about Molly Weasley ;-)—even that victory might not have been so final had Molly not first vanquished Voldemort’s most likely successor. Almost as if the author were trying to make a point about the power of motherly love…
Ian,
Harry hexing people – It’s true it’s really glossed over. I agree he wasn’t as bad as James and Sirius (I should have mentioned in my last post Sirius was probably even worse than James) but it was still a big change from the boy who was horrified by his father bullying Snape just 6 months ago.
“Neville’s skills were notably improved even fairly early in HBP and he pointed out that he had finally acquired a wand of his own. I believe the author intended to draw attention to that aspect. I have no idea whether it was intended to be general foreshadowing of wandlore or if she had already planned out the Elder Wand thread by that point; the latter is plausible since many of the key elements of HBP were actually originally intended for CoS.”
Interesting. I agree HBP is supposed to be a mirror of CoS in lots of ways just like DH is a mirror for PS/SS. I don’t remember seeing much of Neville in HBP but I did remember the time when he was struggling in DADA against Hermione and he was still the butt of jokes when he had to set his pants on fire to allow Peeves to let me pass through a door after the first apparition lesson. Do you recall a scene where Neville showed improvements in duels in that book?
I agree with your assessment of Draco’s movements.
“I felt it was strongly implied in DH that the one of the aspects that made the Elder Wand so special was that it had unique ownership rules. There’s no question that it would have been better for JKR to at least have hinted at such things in an earlier book, but in terms of in-story mechanics I don’t see any inconsistencies (especially since we have the catch-all handwave of “it’s magic” ;-).”
It’s the only explanation that is plausible for explaining the convenient changes in Elder Wand’s ownership and it’s what I thought as well. I don’t think it’s a huge issue that invalidates the whole book, but I can’t just ignore it especially since there are so many opportunities for foreshadowing it in duels in earlier books. The wandlore rules though are so complex that it’s almost impossible to work out what they are and what they aren’t. Perhaps this is intentional on Rowling’s part.
“Finally, I’m not so sure the outcome of Voldemort and Harry’s duel was irrelevant. Voldy wasn’t powerless, he had simply been brought back to more standard levels of wizarding power. His fatal mistake was to realize that Harry had multiple levels of protection against him. But in broader terms it was absolutely important for him to be gone: Harry’s victory had symbolic power if nothing else. And—since this thread is supposed to be about Molly Weasley ;-)—even that victory might not have been so final had Molly not first vanquished Voldemort’s most likely successor. Almost as if the author were trying to make a point about the power of motherly love..”
I guess I should have made clear that I was looking at relevancy in terms of the outcome of the battle. By that point I believe there was only Voldemort left standing against all of good side and no matter how powerful he is there’s no possible way he could avoid defeat. I see the point of Harry’s symbolic triumph over Voldemort even though it’s aided by the Elder Wand.
Yeah, the motherly love represented by Molly was a pretty strong theme in the book and in that final scene Molly was definitely motivated by seeing 3 girls in danger, one of them is her favourite child and another her future daughter-in-law.
36. torrent56 – “I feel whether a book is awesome or not really depends on the reader. I for example strongly disagree that HBP is an awesome predecessor since it is a basically a story where the hero did nothing active in the fight against Voldemort and prefers to think about Quidditch and girls all the time, cheat in his potions class repeatedly and hex people for fun like his father. Not to mention all the main characters changed for the worse and the abysmal romance writing at times. For those reasons among others I think DH is a better book despite its own problems.”
Well that is a tough argument, lucky for me I didn’t/don’t look at the book in that way. There are no utterly wrong statements here, but I don’t feel that that is a precise summary of the experience of reading this book (as I see it) as I enjoyed this book, for ecpecially all this time with Harry/Dumbledore, everytime they are together is just a memorable scene. And besides, what’s wrong with thinking about girls? ;-)
Ohh, and you didn’t mention which characters changed for the worse, and how?
@41: “besides what’s wrong with thinking about girls?” Nothing! Especially when it is age-appropriate, focused on redheads, and when thoughts about one girl in particular will prove to be quite useful in the next book…
@40: “there was only Voldemort left standing against all of good side and no matter how powerful he is there’s no possible way he could avoid defeat” You’re forgetting that at that point, only Harry and the reader knew that. To everyone else in that room, Voldy was still an immensely powerful foe and Harry, The Boy Who Lived Twice, seemed to be the Second Coming of an equally powerful adversary. In that context their personal confrontation follows quite naturally. Their subsequent banter and anticlimactic duel, hinging not on skill or power but an obscure bit of wandlore, gives the whole scene a lovely sheen of dramatic irony.
”HBP is supposed to be a mirror of CoS in lots of ways” It’s more than that. JKR has stated that much of what we learn in HBP was actually in the first draft of CoS but then deliberately deferred. The details of the changes (regarding horcruxes and a bit of Snape’s background, I believe) are not particularly important for this thread, but the process is. Readers whose only agenda is to enjoy a tale should keep in mind that in the course of writing, editing, and publishing a book, useful details are frequently deferred or omitted for any number of reasons, many of which are perfectly justifiable (at the time at least). Not every late-arriving detail is a hackish plot contrivance, and readers should be willing to cut authors a bit of slack.
That doesn’t preclude critiques, of course, but some hold up better than others. The Elder Wand thread is a legitimate target, since it ends up being fairly plot-relevant and in hindsight there are numerous places where mentions of the Deathly Hallows and rumors of the Deathstick could have been dropped in quite naturally. (The author has the good grace to lampshade this problem by having Dumbledore describe the quest as a deliberate bit of plot-delaying overcomplication.) Complaints about Molly’s dueling skills are, IMO, less sustainable, since her duel with Bellatrix was of mostly symbolic significance and it is more difficult to find places where mention of a dueling past wouldn’t have been slammed as either weird non sequiturs or ham-handed attempts at foreshadowing.
@schwartz
I enjoyed the Dumbledore lessons a lot (in particular Voldemort’s background story) and I think those parts along with the ending are easily the best parts of the book. I think the Draco subplot is interesting enough as well so it’s not like I disliked every part it.
What’s wrong with thinking about girls? Nothing by itself. It’s fine to think about girls as a teenager but when you did nothing else the whole year and even goes backward on what you did the year before like disbanding the DA that’s when I have an issue. Plus the fact Harry still couldn’t be bothered to do his own research and has to rely on Hermione to do it for him again doesn’t speak well for him either. The only thing I remember he did on his own was to read through the HBP textbook. Even if he used it to cheat his way to the potions prince title, at least it’s something constructive he was doing.
Who changed for the worst? Well Harry obviously for reasons already mentioned. I think the rest of the trio and Ginny as well but it’s getting off-topic so if you wish you can message me or find another thread for the discussion.
@Ian
Harry/Voldemort – I see your point about giving a sense of dramatic irony so that could be an explanation for Rowling’s decision to include the dialogue. However, if I interpreted what you said correctly you’re saying nobody in the wizarding world at that time thought they could defeat Voldemort even if it’s 100 against 1? I am not sure if I buy that since my understanding is that even when the Horcruxes were present Voldemort could be sent back to a less-than-ghost form like when he tried to kill baby Harry at the start of the series?
“The Elder Wand thread is a legitimate target, since it ends up being fairly plot-relevant and in hindsight there are numerous places where mentions of the Deathly Hallows and rumors of the Deathstick could have been dropped in quite naturally”
That would be one use for a lot of the filler space in HBP!
“Complaints about Molly’s dueling skills are, IMO, less sustainable, since her duel with Bellatrix was of mostly symbolic significance and it is more difficult to find places where mention of a dueling past wouldn’t have been slammed as either weird non sequiturs or ham-handed attempts at foreshadowing.”
I was amazed when I first entered the fandom that so many people seem to have such a big issue with it. I have a feeling lots of people who complain about it are Molly haters or house-wife haters or a combination of both (especially when they said they prefer the Voldemort loving terrorist to kill more people). In their view, a house-wife couldn’t possibly do anything else despite having lots of luck. No sir. Lots of them are also sexists since they said themselves they want Neville killing Bellatrix even though he was still a student who hasn’t even graduated and was still the butt of jokes just a year earlier whilst Molly is always shown to be very competent at household magic which is no easy feat.
@43: “you’re saying nobody in the wizarding world at that time thought they could defeat Voldemort even if it’s 100 against 1?” At that specific moment, there were enough Death Eaters still engaged that the Hogwarts defenders weren’t in a good position to try. Recall also that Voldemort’s horcruxes—neither their existence nor their destruction—were not common knowledge. But yes, I do believe that apart from the most senior members of the Order (three of whom were in fact ganging up on Voldy, without much success yet), there was still a general sense that Voldemort could only be defeated by a particularly special wizard. Dumbledore and Harry qualified, few others were inclined to try. The taboo on Voldemort’s name capitalized on the widespread fear he still invoked.
But that mentality also partly explains why Molly’s duel was so satisfying. Had Harry not immediately stepped in to bring the whole battle to a close, perhaps the victory by that “mere housewife” would have inspired a few others to realize that no one is invincible.
OK, I thought at the time when Molly-Bellatrix duel started, only Bellatrix and Voldemort were still fighting so this is why after Bellatrix’s death I believe there’s only Voldemort left battling in the Great Hall. I know wizards generally defer to Harry when it comes to Voldemort but I still find it hard to imagine Voldemort can evade capture or death when faced with such overwhelming odds and despite the fear still present.
@45: I believe those were the last two active duels, but I never got the impression that all of the other Death Eaters had been killed, i.e. many still needed to be guarded. It seemed to me that Harry was the only one close enough to Voldemort to be in position to shield Molly.
At this point the author pulled out her Dramatic License and declared that the mother-son and hero-villain themes would take precedence over realistic fight choreography. ;-)
@@@@@43. torrent56 – which thread would fit?
@ian. OK I thought they could just incapacitate the Death Eaters in some way instead of guarding them but maybe that’s a bit too risky.
@schwartz One of Emily Asher Perrins’ HBP re-read threads will do if you wish to continue.