Throughout the HP series, the theme if Love is interwoven brilliantly and it is a major theme in the story. There is also an undercurrent of maternal vs. paternal love as well. To many readers it seems as though maternal love played a more prominent role in the series than paternal love and it was almost as if paternal love was left more to the wayside. Wasn't it after all Lily's sacrifice that enabled an infant Harry to survive Voldemort's attack?

This poll is about how you as a reader, feel how maternal and paternal love were portrayed, and if one type of love was highlighted more in Rowling's story than the other.

Do you feel that both maternal and paternal love had equal importance in the story?

You may choose from more than one of the options given above in the poll, and vote for "other" if your choice reflects something other than has been given in the poll. You are encouraged to support your views with canon evidence, and pose your own questions as well.

Great thread, Lirene!

If we look at it from the perspective of Harry in particular, I would have to say that paternal love is the more dominant love. Aside from his late mother, Harry pretty much only has Mrs. Weasley as a source of maternal love. Admittedly, she's a great source of maternal love, but when you think of all of Harry's sources of paternal love (aside from his late father) - Arthur, Hagrid, Sirius, Remus, DD, and at one point, Fudge - I would say that Harry's paternal love is far more dominant than his maternal love.

Now, if we continue look at Harry, but strictly from the perspective of his late biological parents, I would have to say that it's relatively equal. True, Lily's actions had a far more profound magical effect on Harry's life, but in times of need, Harry looked more to his father's image for strength, support, and guidance (not to mention the fact that it was a mere technicality that made Lily's actions have the effect that they did rather than James' - both parents bravely did everything they could to protect Harry).

I agree, great poll, lirene! Um, so far as I can see, I'm the only one who's actually voted in the poll: I voted for "both portrayed equally" (as can be plainly seen ). Initially, my gut reaction was that maternal love was highlighted more so than paternal love, due to Lily's sacrifice--but then I remembered that Harry's Patronus is a stag, his representation of his father, and how protective that turns out to be in so many different situations (even the word Patronus, in its Latin roots, means both protector and father). A mother's love and a father's love is certainly different, or at least demonstrated differently, and we see that in HP, I think. But in general, I think that each parent's love is held to be special, honored, and important. If he'd had the opportunity, I believe that James would have sacrificed himself for Harry in the way that Lily did, too.

Plus, I think that Dudley was ruined equitably by both Vernon's and Petunia's "love," so that's another consideration!

very good poll indeed, but also very intriguing.

i voted for both were portrayed equally.

my first instinct was to vote for maternal love, like StepInTime said. however, thinking a bit more i think they both were very important in the plot. for starters, james did say "take harry and go!" to lily when LV invaded their house. i think it was a noble display of love that he tried, at least tried, to hold off LV to give a chance of survival to lily and harry. there were lots of fatherly figures throughout the books to harry and that were of great importance. but the maternal love is still veeryyy important. so thats why i voted for what i voted.

I didn't even see the poll! However, now that I've wised up...

I would have to say that in the grand scheme of things, both are portrayed equally (or rather as equally important). I still stand by what I said about Harry's particular character recieving more sources of paternal love than maternal, and I think the same thing can be said about the series as a whole, but the series as a whole also has a healthy mixture of importance on both sides. We see great and/or devoted mothers like Molly, Narcissa, Lily, and Petunia - even Hermione acts as a bit of a mother figure for Ron and Harry (especially in DH). At the same time, we see a lot of the same on the male side in Arthur, Lucius, Vernon, James, Remus, Sirius, Hagrid, DD, and Xenophelius.

Even though the number of paternal sources seems to be more than the number of maternal sources, I don't get the impression that Jo was trying to show one form as more important than the other; she only seems to make the point that these two forms are very different, and are expressed in different ways. In fact, if you think about this a little bit deeper, this could be one of Jo's ways of illustrating a more general concept about love as a whole - no form of love has greater value/importance than another; each of love's vast forms are equally valued, and are equally important to human development.

All the responses thus far have been great.
My vote went for the paternal inflences being greater. While Lily Potter and later Molly Weasley are great female role models, Petunia Dursley and even that hag Umbriddge are not. McGonagall is not remotely like a mother figure, as far as I can see.
In contrast, not only do we have Hagrid and Dumbledore as types of paternal figures for Harry, there are also Lupin and Black as well. Then there is the incomparable Arthur Weasley-- Sirius may have been Harry's god father, but Arthur was more of a in loco parentis. As one of you noted, there was also James Potter, who influence/protected Harry postumously through the patronus figure of the stag. It seems clear that the male role models outnumber the female.

I totally agree with the whole strength in numbers concept (at least, in terms of the number of sources), but IMO, Jo didn't really place more emphasis on paternal influences, or give them more overall metaphorical strength. We never focused on one side over the other for very long.

This is a really interesting thread, lirene, one of the things I have noticed about maternal vs. paternal love in this series is that a male or female role model is slightly different than someone who exemplifies paternal or maternal love. Narcissa is obviously not a role model to anyone, but her maternal love for her son saves Harry. This doesn't necessarily show that Narcissa is a suddenly a good person, but simply the overwhelming strength of love, a power which can overwhelm and change anyone except maybe a psychopath like Voldemort. Maternal love is entirely more sacrificial while paternal love is more protective. James stood up to fight against Voldemort so Lily and Harry could escape while Lily sacrificed herself in Harry's place. While I think that in quantity those who exhibit maternal/paternal love are fairly equal I think in quality they vary extremely. This is not to say that one is of more value than another, just that the manifestations of each type are very different. Paternal love seems to give Harry a solid base, a strong foundation, father figures are always explaining, giving answers to build a life on, while maternal love provides more of the tacit, fiercely emotional support. Many times maternal love seems to be a catalyst for change in the story, Lily's sacrifice, Narcissa's desperation, Hermione and Mrs. Weasley's nurturing, while paternal love provides the solid ground to move forward on, Hagrid's introduction of Harry to the wizarding world, Dumbledore's teachings. Of course, sometimes each type of love can obstruct, Mrs. Weasley's prying into the Trio's plans, Dumbledore's love towards Harry, his protectiveness, was slightly dangerous for the task which he was setting Harry up to complete. All in all, love is the most important theme in the book, and while I did vote for maternal being more important simply because of it's far reaching effects, I do believe that each is crucial to not only the lives of these characters, but to humanity overall and Jo through her wonderful writing shows us this importance.

Wonderful topic, lirene.

Although both maternal and paternal love play immense thematic roles in the books, I somewhat think maternal love has a bit of an edge. Also, I see JKR's use of parental influence as a thematic issue displaying the consequences of the lack of each, as well as the presence.

Harry is raised by neither of his parents. But he did have one year (the key, most vital year in a person's life whereby the personality is formed) in which both Lily and James acted as loving, interactive, and supportive parents to their infant son. Lily, of course, additionally conferred upon Harry the protection of her Sacrifice...a huge, if not intended, enhancement of her role in Harry's life.

Snape, on the other hand, had (seemingly, and hinted at by JKR I believe) the love of his mother, but not his father, who abused and crushed the spirit out of both of them. We see how that scenario contorted Snape's character...which plays out in the course of his involvement in the entire plot.

Tom Riddle had no love from, or even presence of, either parent when an infant, or growing child, or adult. His narcissistic, insecure, grandiose, unstable, psychotic and sociopathic nature are the result.

Dumbledore had the love of both his parents, with greatness of character as a result. Still, his father is sent to Azkaban for revenging his daughter by acting out against her attackers, and Kendra stays home to raise her family. It is possible to infer that DD's lack of paternal influence in his later adolescence had a negative effect, making him susceptible to Grindelwald's deceits and to his own burgeoning ego.

Draco was raised, loved, and spoiled by both of his spoiled parents...and he's a git, though not, I think, warped and evil as Tom Riddle is. Narcissa seems to be the more involved, fiercely protective parent here.

The Weasleys are wonderful, loving, guiding and supporting parents. Their children, other than arrogant Percy (who Molly seems to have spoiled) are terrific and stable, on the whole.

There's more to this, but I don't want to bore anybody. I just have a sense that maternal love is given the edge by JKR.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the part in bold. Molly is arguably the most maternal character in the series; you would almost expect to see her picture beside the word "maternal" in the dictionary. In DH in particular, we see just how instinctive her protective nature is when Ginny nearly gets AK'd by Bella (although this protective nature is evident pretty much all throughout the series).

Overall, I would say that sacrificial and protective nature together is what makes up both maternal and paternal instincts. The first goal is certainly to protect, but that may include a sacrifice if need be. This pretty much sums up Lily's scenario in the Godric's Hollow incident: she did all that she could to protect both herself and Harry, but once she realized she was trapped, she made the transition to a sacrifice in the hopes of at least saving Harry. Similarily, for James' scenario, he didn't even have a chance at trying to protect himself or his family, so he just went straight to a sacrifice to buy the others a bit of time.

If this poll takes only the reader's perspective (regardless of any religous, political, or other agenda overtones into consideration), then I have to admit that I was initially troubled by the thread. It is, however, a fantastic way to look at love, from the point of view of the reader's "feelings" and thoughts.

My reading of the series awoke within me my own experiences (as a child, and as a parent). I remember the feelings I had when reading of Neville's "Grand", and the fear/love she armed him with. (Btw, would his parents' sacrifices have given him some protection?) Luna's father and mother were very kind to her. What kind of love did she receive from them? Thestrals?

Severus Snape and Tom Riddle never wanted their "muggle" fathers' affections -- or did they?

And how can you equate or weigh the love of either Arthur or Molly Weasley for their children, for Harry, or for the many other needy souls they adopted?

Therefore, I chose the 4th option. "Maternal Love" and "Paternal Love" -- to me as a reader -- can neither be qualified, evaluated, or measured. They are symbols, and are part of a language that helps me to understand others, and myself, a little bit better.

ELC

I voted for Maternal, as it always seemed to me that Paternal love, with the exception of A Weasley, was something longed for in the books.

I don't think so; they weren't really sacrificing themselves for Neville's benefit. They were undoubtedly brave, but there are a lot more requisites for the protection .

Wonderful topic Lirene.

I think the same way harrypottergeek2 does. There are examples of both maternal love and paternal love over the series, but I couldn't say that one was more emphasised than the other. They both have their own importance, and if you go deep, there is no difference. Love is Love, whether it be as between parents and children, friends, siblings, or lovers. I voted for 'both' as well as 'other'. That's because I do think they were shown equally but also that they were shown in different ways.

Ever since Harry was told that his parents had died to save him, he knew for certain how much they loved him. I don't think Harry saw any difference in James taking on Voldemort to give Lily time to run, and Lily refusing to step away from Harry when specifically told to. They each did what they could to save the people they loved.

The only difference I can see is that Harry wanted his father's presence and strength to come from within himself, whereas he wanted Lily's presence strengthening him from outside himself. Harry wanted to be like his father and even die like him in GOF and was very upset when he saw James tormenting Snape in OOTP. He risks a lot to talk to Sirius and Remus to clarify his doubts. with Lily, it is a different case; Harry asks his mother to stay close to him while he walked into the forest in DH, showing that he needed her presence very near to him even if he knew that the power of her sacrifice lived on in his body.

I know I have just taken Harry's example and not anyone else's, but it was easier because we know a lot about what and how Harry thinks rather than anyone else; and I'm sure he regards both types of love as being different, equally important nonetheless.

I think that there is a lot more emphasis on the love of a Mother which is a serious influence in the Harry potter series. Tonks, Molly Weasley and of course Lily Potter are all examples of miraculous mothers who will do anything for there children. They are very brave and caring and very strong willed women. However when it comes to Paternal love, it's more vague. Arthur Weasley is an automatic example of a superb father, a very good person and a very good example of Paternal love. However in the case of Paternal love it is actually the LACK of it in many cases which shines through. You can understand many of the characters actions have been decided from a lack of paternal influence, like Voldemort. He resented his father, but still there is the fact that if his father had stayed he would have been happy with a whole and loving family.

I personally believe that Harry has had many more surrogate Dads than Mums. I am not sure why this is, but his only really surrogate mother is Molly Weasley, who truley treats him like her own son. But on the father figure side he has had; Albus, Sirius, Remus and Arthur. And those are only the ones that I can think of off the top of my head!

I voted for equal portrayal because while Lily's sacrifice (and Merope's abandonment) resonate through the whole book Harry himself spends seven books demonstrating paternal love as he protects and sacrifices for those he takes responsibility for. In fact the books by following the classic Heros Journey and taking Harry from child to man also take that paternal love in him and mature and expand it.

Book 1 Harry acts out of a general feeling of responsibility - without really truly understanding what he is risking or asking of himself he does what he feels is right.

Book 2 Harry saves a specific person - Ginny

Book 3 (one of the more interesting) he goes further on his emotional journey by choosing not to act, protecting both Sirius and Wormtail

Book 4 Harry as savior really comes forward and throughout the story he steps up - Hermione, Ron, Gabrielle, Fleur etc all receive Harry's protection and at the end of course he brings Cedric back (the film having him cradle Cedric, four other major father figures looking on - Hagrid, DD, Mr Diggory and Mr Weasley; in fact the whole idea of paternal love is emphasized again in the film with Mr Weasley's, "That's my son!" and at the end Mr Diggory's heartbroken, "That's my boy...")

Book 5, a terribly dark book for Harry but an essential one for the paternal journey as he takes on the father role to save the man whom he looked to as a father-figure - Sirius.

Book 6 naturally with Dumbledore's death Harry loses the last father-figure who could shelter and protect him, who could conceivably take on the tasks that Harry feels responsible for (Yes there is still Hagrid and Mr Weasley but neither is in that particular position of authority that DD has)

Book 7 completes the circle by giving a paternal sacrifice to mirror the maternal one.

I was shocked to see so few votes for paternal love! I checked both maternal and paternal instead of "equally" since I felt both were dominant, but at different times. Maternal love is definitely dominant in the night where Lily sacrificed herself. But it is the paternal love that Harry longs for in the majority of the series, up until James's flaws are revealed in the fifth book and Harry's perfect image of his dad is somewhat slighted. It is paternal love Harry seeks in both Sirius and, eventually when the two get closer, Dumbledore. Harry desperately wanted a father's love and guidance and repeatedly must lose his father figures.

I feel paternal love dominated for most of Harry's school life. In both times with the AK however, at the beginning and what could have been the end of his life, it was Lily's maternal love Harry depended on and wanted the most - with her sacrificing herself the first time and with him asking her to stay close to him the second.

In my opinion, maternal love dominated. Harry is more touched by the love Mrs. Weasley shows. When she hugs him he feels it as if a mother is hugging him. It is Lily's love and protection that saves Harry. He does have more paternal love, but it is the maternal love that has the greater impact.

Wow, this topic really got me confused. So that after reading all the posts, I just voted "Other" and will try to make up my mind here.

I've never looked at this in that way, but I think, it's really true. Though I think, it probably comes from the fact that Harry's a boy, I don't know, perhaps he wants / needs more paternal guidance. I can also kind of see that the *father-figures* for Harry (and in general) are generally more flawed, imperfect than the *mother-figures*. So, I think, it kind of makes sense that Harry has more *father-figures* to guide him - because they all have more flaws and I think, their roles and efforts all combined would make it a perfect *guide*. I mean, as we go through the books, we learn something about each of Harry's *father-figures* that *puts them down* in Harry's eyes, and Lily and Molly don't get *tainted* (for the lack of a better word).

I think, that while the *figures* are different, both maternal and paternal love is important and they're actually quite similar. I mean, they both do the same thing. For example, James and Lily both just wanted to protect Harry, the only difference is that Riddle offered Lily to step away; and in the end of DH both Narcissa and Lucius did everything they could to get to Draco.

I think, maternal and paternal love balance each other. I mean, while Harry's paternal figures change, his maternal ones - Lily and Molly - stay stable. And while emphasis often seems to be on the farther roles - I mean, for example, Snape always making Harry angry with his talks about James, Draco always banking on his father, - we can always sense roles of mothers as well, perhaps not as prominent, but if Lily hasn't sacrificed herself, there would be no Harry; Neville has only his Grandmother; if Narcissa hasn't said no, Draco would have gone to Durmstrang instead of Hogwarts; and there's, of course, Molly. So, we see that both kinds of love are at work, they just get *represented* in different ways.

I think that the theme might be best as parental love, i really felt that at the end, the moment when he walked toward death, when Harry turned to his mother and said stay with me was one ofthe most powerful and telling in the series, but I also felt through out the books his ability to see his dad as a person, with flaws, instead of the perfect hero he originally believed him to be showed Harry's ability to grow. The same with Sirius and even, Lupin, I felt like the parental love was showed to be at times flawed (even overbearing, in the case of the well meaning and wonderful Mrs. Weasley) but still powerful.

I felt like the message about matrrnal love espescially is that it is powerful but he had to find his own way with it, the protection of love his mother gave him was enough for only so long, then he had to find his own way, just like with Mrs. Weasley-she could shelter her family for so long, but in the end she had to get out and fight -like she did with Bellatrix. Part of Harry's full circle growth was to understand his maternal and paternal influences and use both to become the person he did. Then pass those on to his own family. I felt like the paternal influences that were most influential on him were really Arthur Weasley and Lupin, which were excellent examples. They were the contrast to the anti paternal influence of Vernon Dursley.

One of the things I loved about the books was that I flet like it was an empowering theme about parental love, which is why I felt they stretched across genrations and didn't paint parents as either martyrs or old codgers.

Interesting topic, Lirene!

But I just wanted to ask...is Love in itself dominant? Parents can be overbearing and smothering at times (on both sides maternal and paternal), but that is most often a reaction of fear, not Love. To answer the question, though, I remembered this quote which was read at my wedding ceremony:


Thinking about this made me remember Lily's actions in comparison to most of her male counterparts; James, Severus, Sirius, Peter Pettigrew, Remus...and how she exemplified all of these truly loving qualities, while the males didn't seem to act out of love, but out of some other motive. In light of that, I would say that maternal love was the most influential theme in the books, yet not overwhelmingly dominating one.

Oh, that's a very good point! Along the same line of thought, doesn't the fear exist because there is love? It's the love of a child that causes that gut-wrenching, heart-pounding fear for their safety. I think the two must go hand in hand, to some extent. The smothering parent lets the fear control, perhaps. And I agree with momwitch that maternal love is the most prevalent in the series, but not overwhelmingly so. I think maternal love is so prevalent because JKR is writing something she knows firsthand. Of course I have no real basis for that.

I know we've got people from all over the world with a zillion different backgrounds on the forums, so in case someone isn't familiar with the beautiful quote momwitch posted, it's from the Bible (1 Corinthians 13).

I'm really liking this train of thought, Pleione!

Just musing here, but I'm getting the idea that Love in its pure form just is without explanation. Love in its true form is incomprehensible - and because of that, is celebrated as one of the many names of God. Another translation of that quote is:



So as it appears to me, fear is an avenue to the protection aspect of Love, yet isn't a part of Love. Love is expressed through many "faces" which are also enhanced by many other things, including Fear. Fear is to a large degree selfish, (or self-seeking), which according to the quote is one of the things which Love is not. Fear can be manifested by the anticipation of a personal loss, (among other things) whether it be a threat to life, loss of possessions or someone who represents a vested interest to a particular individual. Love is also not possessive (ie. envious), it lets go, which is something that Fear cannot comprehend. Fear and Love share some of the same qualities, such as not being rational , yet Fear is grasping, while Love remains open.

A mother such as Molly Weasley is in touch with Love, yet that Love isn't a perfect expression because Molly is not perfect. Love is reflected through her, yet it is not in its "pure" form - that is reserved exclusively for one who is Perfect. Terms such as "tough love" are probably more akin to the "true" meaning of Love, because tough love in its optimal practice, lets someone who is loved deeply, grow into themselves and learn to live fully, making their own mistakes while being assured that they are still loved unconditionally in spite of the mistakes that they do make. Real "Tough Love" is probably one of the most perfect expressions of True Love - as it lets go, and allows one to take responsibility for oneself, in spite of the potential anguish it can cause for the person who is letting go.

Now, I'm not talking about child neglect, here...but that can be perceived as a very fine line to walk. I'm talking about an ability to let go as the child's development is ready for it, and let them learn to live as fully functional adults who are capable of giving and receiving Love in a truly loving way.

Well, I suppose you could put the 'love' actions in the books through their paces.

Three aspects to love, to miss one deliberately is to miss love;

-good
-truth
-beauty

Lily's sacrifice is of course the most perfect love we as humans could do (John 13:15). It was all perfectly good (no selfish desire), perfectly true (no lying to self or anyone else), and perfectly beautiful (no hesitation, or holding back of the will).

There are, of course, other acts of sacrifice in the books, but Lily's sacrifice was the only one that evoked the ancient magic, so I would conclude that maternal love took precedence in the series, both in reflection and importance. (Not that there wasn't strong paternal love present)

Excellent posts here! Just to add to them:

I agree with Pleione's line of thinking: it's the love (i.e. the emotional attachment) that induces the fear in question. Love (and emotional attachment in general) is where the fear (and emotional turmoil in general) essentially comes from - without the emotional attachment, there is no emotional turmoil to be had. This is very much the situation with Dobby's death - Harry discovers (through DD's influence) that his grief over Dobby's death is really another form/expression of love:


Staying with this line of thought, there are two lines from songs by Thousand Foot Krutch that jump out at me here:

"Pain is what's inside of me, not when you're bleeding". This is obviously saying that true pain is not a physical experience - it's emotional turmoil or damage.

"Sometimes love feels like pain, and sometimes I wonder if it's all the same". This goes back to what I said about emtional pain essentially coming from emotional attachment; once the pain is induced, it almost becomes merged with the emotional attachment, since the pain is really just the damaged emotional attachment.


You make an interesting observation here, but I would argue that since it wasn't really maternal love in particular that evoked the magic when Lily sacrificed herself, I don't think we are meant to think that maternal love took precedence in both reflection and importance. Time-wise, it certainly did, but looking at the series as a whole, considering that any human being in the same situation could have technically evoked the same magic, I think the fact that it was Lily (acting on maternal instinct) who evoked the magic is just a technicallity (at least in terms of comparing maternal love to paternal love).

In fact, I think that it was because the importance of maternal love was so profoundly established early in the series that Jo devoted so many more characters to paternal love as opposed to paternal love. Plot-wise, the importance (or rather, the effects) of maternal love had to be established this profoundly early on, so I think Jo felt the need to balance it out by establishing paternal love in more numerous ways so that it's importance as a whole would not be missed or under-appreciated by the reader.

Ah, interesting! But I do think that Love can be present without attachment. The emotional attachment can be a by- product of loving feelings, but emotional attachment does not dictate the parameters of love. In a "perfect" expression of love, "loss" does not exist...feeling loss is a manifestation of dependency or expectation. In a parent/child relationship a certain amount of dependency is necessary to ensure the child's survival, but it is up to the parent to realize when to loosen the grips so that the relationship doesn't become co-dependent. When a parent forfeits their entire identity in favor of the limited parenting role beyond its necessity, the parent exhibits dependency on the child to define who they are in the world, not allowing the now adult child to fully blossom into their full potential. This isn't an expression of Love, but a fear of losing control, and a fear of losing an aspect that we have become accustomed to: ie. attachment.

This isn't to say that human beings shouldn't depend upon each other and that we shouldn't ask for help. It is just that when we become solely dependent upon a single source to define who we are and how we see ourselves, it is an unbalanced representation that becomes clinging and refuses to let go because it is selfish.

This is not to say that we should not also grieve when we experience loss. Grief is often a way of sorting through our feelings to come to a point of acceptance and equilibrium from which we can move forward. Grief is somewhat selfish, but many times necessary to come to this point - in the quote you provided HPG2, it indicates to me that Harry was still grieving for Dumbledore, but the grief over Dobby helped Harry put in perspective Dumbledore's death...that he was still present within him, and that Death was merely a readjustment for the still living - and that love is never truly lost. Voldemort could or would not feel grief, so he was stuck fighting what he feared: Death. Like was said before, fear can be an avenue to the protective aspect of love, but it can also lead you away from Love itself.

I thought it might be appropriate to share something that was on my father's funeral card. It is a traditional blessing, but I think it sums up quite nicely what we are talking about here:

Interesting - I've always defined love as emotional attachment (at least on the part of the person who has the love - I agree that the attachment does not always go both ways). The way I see it, when you have love for anything - whether it's a person (like a friend, family member, or romantic interest), pet, or even some intangible concept like your job - your emotional favour is drawn towards that thing, whatever it may be, and that is what I see as emotional attachment. The attachment itself (in general) comes in many strengths and forms - sometimes it's even subconscious - but it is still attachment nonetheless.

Another great discussion.

I just wondered if you've come across these quotes from JKR (sorry if they've been posted already & I've overlooked them!)...



And later...

I see your point, HPG2, but I have a hard time limiting (or attaching ) a definition to Love. I've long been interested in the Buddhist interpretations of ideas such as love, compassion and non-attachment, and in looking to broaden this conversation, came across this page which covers all of these concepts in a pretty straight-forward approach. I especially enjoyed the little anecdotes.

Great find, Cassy V ! I remember this transcript and totally forgot about it until you reposted it here! What JKR says is very revealing here, but in which way, I'm not too sure. Do you think that she means that the predominant theme in the books is focused on paternal love: the lack of which lets evil loose in the world? The way that I read those quotes would indicate to me that she wasn't particularly fond of James, either, since he is killed off before the main action of the story actually takes place. I'll have to think a little more on this one! lol

This is very good stuff to bring up, but I think the important thing to note here is that Jo says that Arthur is (arguably) the only good father, not father figure. Besides the fact that Jo herself said this, it's not really hard to see why this true; other than Arthur, the only fathers that we see/hear much of are Lucius, Amos, Barty, Vernon, Remus, James, Frank (Longbottom), and Tom Senior (I think that's all of them - feel free to add more to the list ). Each of these fathers have either been pre-maturely robbed of their paternal responsibilities, made terrible paternal decisions during a reasonable tenure as a father (or, in the case of Tom, before their offspring was even born), or (in the case of Amos), been portrayed as little more than mediocre (I think we can all agree he wasn't exactly an ideal father).

That being said, every character that has been portrayed as a good father figure (Arthur, Hagrid, DD, Sirius, Remus, etc.) was not necessarily an actual father. Interestingly, Arthur is the only good father and father figure - Remus was not necessarily a good father for Teddy (before Teddy was born, that is), but for Harry, he was a rather commited father figure.

On a related note, I think that pretty much the same can be said about good mothers and mother figures: Molly is pretty much the only good mother besides Lily (although Lily's maternal role is very much in league with James' paternal role as neither were able to spend much time as parents), and she is both a good mother and mother figure.


Hmm, I didn't read through that page from beginning to end, but I did notice a vast difference between the Buddhist definition of attachment and the one I gave. The Buddhist definition is much more heavy than mine (i.e. the attachment they describe is a much closer and stronger one than I was trying to convey).

Also, I agree that giving a definition for love is very limiting to it's meaning (being unable to precisely define or describe love is exactly what makes it so sacred), so perhaps "definition" was the wrong word to use here. I was merely trying to describe the fundamental aspect of what love (in general) means. Love comes in many, many forms (which is partly what makes it so difficult to define or describe), but the one thing that I find is common to all of them is that they all involve some level of emotional attachment (i.e. a one-way emotional connection, given by the person doing the loving). Of course, this does nto come remotely close to defining or describing it properly or fully, but I do think helps identify the fundamental essence of love in the simplest meaning of the word.

Brilliant topic/question. I think the biggest problem when addressing this question is the gender attachment to maternal/paternal love. Just because someone is male, doesn't neccessarily mean that their love for another character is paternal, and similarily female love isn't always maternal. I am primarliy thinking of McGonagoll at this point, while she undoubtably has a form of love for Harry, I don't think that it can be classified as maternal. Similarily (and I am sure this point will get lots of objections) I don't really see Siruis as having a paternal love for Harry-he loves him, more than he realises, of that I have no doubt, but is it paternal love? I think Sirius spent so much of his youth in Azkaban that he simply doesn't have the maturity to offer Harry that level of guidance. I think Dumbledore's assessment of him being a mixture of a father figure and brother is most accurate-to me, it symbolises more of a brotherly love than a paternal love.

I think that the Weasley parents are both wonderful examples of maternal and paternal love, and of a family unit as a whole. I think that Harry has several key male role models, but Mrs Weasley seems to be the only female role model that really sticks out. Obviously, there are the Hogwarts teachers, but (perhaps with the exception of Professor Sprout, and I mean that as in her general personna) none of them seem specifically maternal, in the same way that none of the male teachers strike me as particularly paternal.

Does Dumbledore have a paternal love for Harry? Could he have sent Harry to his death (even if he thought Harry would return from it) if he was actually his son, if he had that actual blood tie to him? I don't know. If Harry had not been an orphan, who would we say still showed him maternal/paternal love? Probably only Molly Weasley-all the other loves would probably be characterised slightly differently. Obviously, I realise that if Harry had his own mother, Molly probably wouldn't seem to mother him as much (she is certainly more motherly to harry than she is to hermione), so it is kind of a moot point.

I think that the stereotype of motherly love is more prevelant, but I think that there are fairly equal relfections of both maternal and paternal love shown, especially in regards to love shown to Harry.

Well, I agree wholeheartedly with the whole father-figure and brother mix, but IMO, being a father-figure is exactly how a non-biological male provides a source of paternal love for someone (in fact, the way I see it, the terms are virtually interchangeable). As for the brother part (and the part I bolded), I do think that the link between Harry Sirius (i.e. James) is what makes their relationship so much stronger than what you normally see between godfather and godson; Harry sees Sirius as his closest connection to the father he never knew (he even says/thinks that having Sirius around is the next best thing to having his father back), and Sirius sees his lost friendship with James in Harry.

However, I do think that both characters realize the medium in their relationship (i.e. that Harry doesn't think of Sirius as a James substitute, nor that Sirius thinks of Harry as a James substitute). From Harry's perspective, his distinction is a lot more obvious, but even though Sirius does see a lot of James in Harry, his instincts as a godfather have always been evident from the moment Harry started to trust him in POA. We see this in their convo when they exit the Shack, the letter he sends to Harry once he escapes with Buckbeak, his decision to travel back to Hogwarts in GoF once he notices that things are starting to look dangerous for Harry, and his willingness to rush to Harry's rescue in OotP.


Hmmm, interesting points. I would have to say that DD had a lot of paternal love for Harry: he always did what was best for Harry (at least in terms of staying alive), which is something any good father would do. Yet once he had a way of ensuring these needs in the long run, he didn't stop there; he tried to make life as comfortable and pain-free as humanly possible (he says this himself at the end of OotP). In general, DD didn't have many close personal relationships - not even with his own family. Harry, however, was very important to DD - not just as a pupil, or as the key to destroying LV for good, but they had as close of a friendship as a headmaster could have with one of his students (especially considering how distant DD generally was with people).

As for whether or not DD would have been able to do the same thing to Harry if they had been blood relatives, it's hard to say. I think he still would have tried to find a way of doing it in the least painful way as possible (or at least to make the inevitable seem more acceptable and less terrifying), but it would have likely been a shade more difficult for him to mentally commit himself to it. This, of course, is all before learning about the strengthened blood connection that Harry was given - once DD knew about that, everything would become much easier on DD (but still a shade more difficult than how it actually happened).


Ah, now this is a great point! I do think that Jo set out to fuel the modern-day stereotype of motherly love through Lily and Molly (and Narcissa too, I suppose), but I also think she set out to explain that paternal love is also something quite unique through Arthur, James, Sirius, DD, Hagrid, Lucius, etc. IMO, you're right in saying that modern-day stereotypes tend to set prevelance on maternal love, but I do think that if one were to stop and think about it, but types are well-represented (in both today's society and in the Potterverse and other fictional stories).

First of all, kudos to all of the wonderful insights; just reading these posts makes the HP experience that much more meaningful
You bring up a very valid point about Dumbledore and whether or not had he actually been a blood relative, i.e. biological father, could he have sent Harry to his death? Well, first off, I don't believe Dumbledore sent Harry to his death, since I believe Harry willing sacrificed himself in the Forbidden Forest. At that point, Harry was ready to face his death. Dumbledore never forced this decision upon Harry. It was just up to Harry to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together and decide for himself what the best course of action was. He could have walked away when Aberforth told him to; he could have walked away at any point and time but he didn't.

Also, is Dumbledore any different than say, a father who has a son fighting in a war? Sons and daughters in the armed forces risk their lives all of the time by their own choice, and that certainly is a risk and a sacrifice too because we all know that staying alive during war isn't a guarantee, yet their paternal love is unwavering. So, I believe Dumbledore can be seen in a similar light.

I agree with harrypottergeek2's assessment that Dumbledore had few personal relationships, but in Harry, he found someone he could love; love like a son. Could it be that in Harry he saw a helpless boy who needed help; a boy who had so many odds stacked against him, someone who may have reminded him in a way of his sister Ariana? A love that needed to be channeled since it had failed and Dumbledore didn't want to duplicate his mistake? Harry was the only person Dumbledore loved as a son, and it's as if he adopted Harry from very early on. So, although he wasn't Harry's biological, blood father, he certainly played the part IMO

I voted for both being equal.

Harry is someone who undoubtedly experienced the love of both paternal and maternal figures. For only one year of his life, he had his 'real' parents. And even from that one year, we have no doubt that they loved him. They both died trying to save him. Yes, Lily made the sacrifice that gave him that extra protection but I have no doubt that if James had been standing in Lily's place and LV had given him the same ultimatum, he would have made the same decision that Lily did. James had no wand in is hand when he faced LV at the door but yet he told Lily to run with Harry. His only thought was for his son.

I believe that Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid and Arthur also all provided Harry with Paternal love. They didn't love him because he was 'The Boy Who Lived'. They loved him unconditionally and without question and would have done anything they could to protect him putting his safety before their own. They didn't always make the right decisions (no person ever does) but I do believe they all had good intentions and Harry's best interest at heart.

Molly Weasley undoubtedly provided Harry with Maternal love. She has 7 children of her own and yet she still had the ability to offer him love and support when he needed it most. What an incredible mother she is.

Other examples of Maternal love are actually people who aren't what you'd consider 'nice' or 'good' ... Narcissa Malfoy and Petunia Dursley. I like the fact that JKR is able to show that people aren't all black&white. Narcissa and Petunia weren't particularly nice people and yet they undoubtedly loved their sons.

I think the true magic of maternal and paternal love is that it never leaves us even when that person has passed on. Harry's parents and parental figures were still there giving him strength even after their deaths. People who love us as a parent does leave part of themselves with us when they pass on, the part that gives us strength and courage and the unquestioning and unconditional belief that we can do and be anything we want.

I think another example of maternal love is Alice Longbottom. I have no doubt that Alice loves Neville ... when she gives him the wrappers in OotP, I think is one of the most touching scenes. She may not know who anyone is and yet she still seems to have some 'connection' to him where she wants to give him a gift. Perhaps a sign that motherly love is stronger than any curse?

Sorry if this has already been answered in this thread but I have a question for others though... what do you think of Neville's Gran? Do you think she exhibits maternal love? Is she a good mother-figure for Neville? When we meet Neville, he lacks confidence and we also know his family thought he might be a squib. We also know his gran doesn't think he has the talent of his father. I have a debate with a friend of mine over this... I believe that his Gran does have maternal love for him, she disagrees. My friend thinks that Neville's Gran only show's any interest after he builds up his courage and starts fighting, that before that she sees him as a 'disappointment'. I don't believe that's true. I don't think his Gran is someone like Molly who is able to easily and freely show her love but I don't think that means she doesn't love him or sees him as a disappointment. I think she wants the best for him and for him to be the best that he can be and I think that she knows he has it in him which is why she pushes him. She takes an interest in his life (he recognises his friends when they meet them in the hospital and obviously listens to Neville since she knows he talks about them regularly). It's also known that Neville respects his Gran and her opinion (when people are questioning Harry and DD, Neville says his Gran believes DD and so does he). So what does everyone else think? Does she love him unconditionally? Or is it conditional on him being a strong wizard?

Interesting question Nickel. I think that his Gran does love him unconditionally, you see that in the knowledge she has of Nevilles life at Hogwarts, the remembrall she sends him, etc. I think however, that she has high expectations for Neville-he had very gifted parents, one of which was her own son, I think it is natural that she expect great things from him, and to want him to fulfill the role his father was forced to quit (not that of an auror, but that of a brave man who sacrificed a lot for the greater good). I think that is what every parent/gaurdian wants for their child-for them to fulfill all their potential. Perhaps Augusta always knew that Neville's talent was in him, even if her never showed it obviously before OoTP. I don't think Neville's Nan would have loved him any less, but I think it is realistic to say that she may not have felt as proud of him as she did after he showed his true heart, courage and potential.

Interesting... I view Augusta's mothering to Neville as being somewhat similar to that of Petunia's for Dudley - they both love their son (or grandson), but they went about the wrong way of raising them. We see the "appalling damage" that Petunia inflicted on Dudley from spoiling him more than any kid I've ever met, and we see Neville with far less confidence than anyone I've ever met.

As for Augusta's unconditional love, I agree with Professor L E Snape - it was always there even before Neville came into his own. Like I said before, she just didn't show it very well - to the point where Neville feared her a bit. So no, she wasn't the best mother-figure, but she did have the right intentions.

I see what you are saying about Neville's grandmother, but I don't think that she inflicted any damage on Neville. I know he was scared of her, but I think that was partly Neville's personality. Augusta's mothering was old fashion. She probably raised Neville much like she herself was raised. In the end she raised Neville to be a man of great character, strong in his own way, honest, and trust worthy. While I understand the comparison between her and Petunia, I think they are light years apart.

I agree with Love 4Fawkes, I don't think that Augusta and Petunia can really be contrasted in the terms of effect that they have on their children-Neville turned into a wonderful man and Dudley....well we don't know exactly, but I think it is safe to say that he probably wasn't a Neville! I see how both women raised their children in the way they thought was best (neither of them ever sought to deliberately inflcit any form of damage onto the children), even if they did have some slightly negative impacts. But what parenting doesn't? No parent is perfect-we see that with Mrs Weasley, who is undoubtebly a great mother, but her form of parenting has still left Ron with his own branch of "negative" characteristics-his insecurity, his jealousy, which we see to its full extent when he destroys the locket.

I didn't mean to say that Augusta's and Petunia's parenting tactics were the same, just that they had similarities. You're right, no parenting methods are perfect, but there's a difference between raising a kid to be perfect and having your methods have the effect that they were intended to. Petunia's tactics were to pamper him and never discipline him (likely in the hope that he would have all the experiences he needed to live a happy and enjoyable life), but that obviously didn't happen. Augusta's tactics were to be firm with her grandson - not to let him get out of line, and force/mould him into the person she wanted/expected him to become; needless to say, things didn't go as planned.

In both cases, the methods in question had pretty much the exact opposite effect as what they were intended to have, which (IMO) makes them similar. Certainly not the same, but similar.

I think they were shown to be equal. Harry's parents both gave their lives for him. Teddy's parents both gave their lives for Harry - and for Teddy to have a better world to live in. Sirius, Arthur, Lupin, Cedric's father and Lucius, were all shown to display paternal love (be it good or bad) and Molly, Petunia, and Narcissa were shown to display maternal love (good or bad). So it wasn't the intent of the author to say one is shown more than the other. Certainly there are distinctions in behavior and how kids relate to parents and parental figures, but overall, I feel both were equally shown to be strong and secure.

Likewise, disregard was shown in Merope and Ted Riddle, Sr. - as well in a few other cases. So we were also shown that it can go both ways.

It was a really tough decision. The male characters that portray love are few, but they love more. In the end, I voted maternal, and Molly Weasley swayed my vote. She was the PERFECT mother. She cared for ALL of her kids, plus Harry.

I'd say both. Lupin, James, Arthur, Harry, Ron, Mr. Diggory, Lucius, Sirius, Xeno and Dumbledore all showed paternal love. We saw Molly, Lily, Narcissa, Ginny and Hermione and heard about Tonks and Hermione's mom. So it was more or less equal.

Because of Lily's sacrifice, and JKR's own experiences as a (single) mother, I have to choose maternal love. There are plenty of fatherly figures and role models, but it's a different kind of love... and so often interspersed with comradeship, as is the case with Sirius.

I voted for both parents. Thinking about all of them I would say that none was realy bad. There are a few expections.

Voldemorts father was frustrated for beeing hoodwinked by Merope and left her. He had not been asked if he wanted to be one and had no interest or love for this son, as he fathered him without knowing what he was doing. I don't know how much he can be blamed for lack of interest.

Snapes father maybe was the ugliest one, he was violent and abusive. A real git.

Sirius' mother maybe was the worst mom, but she seemed to be nice to Regulus and Kreacher. I think that she could not forgive Sirius for beeing different of what a Black should be. It's sad that sometimes family values count more than a child.

All the others did their job more or less well. Deans father left to protect the family, this was a kind of love also. Lucius and Narcissa were gits, but reasonable parents. Petunia and Dursley were not the best but did a bit good also.

I can't help thinking that maternal love dominated because of lily&molly