Pureblood Half-blood, Red blood Mudblood
I have ranted talked about this to ruien, rea_saint, albichorizon, disarming_smile (closing the MSN window immediately afterward, therefore losing my brilliant exposition) and, most recently, baeraad.
So I figured I should articulate it on LJ to stop repeating myself.
The disjointed "logic" of HP books is frustrating to readers, but more so to fanfic writers who have to reconcile canon facts ( Read more... )
So I figured I should articulate it on LJ to stop repeating myself.
The disjointed "logic" of HP books is frustrating to readers, but more so to fanfic writers who have to reconcile canon facts ( Read more... )
As ruien pointed once, that would make more sense if she had not simultaneously demonstrated that magic is in the blood.
Hahaha, yes! :D She's trying to preach against racisim at the same time as she's trying to invoke feelings of tribalism, of "our people" and "those other people." She sort of managed to combine those things in the Houses, which are tribal but not based on who your parents were, but then she ruined it by having children usually enter their parents' House.
They treat Muggles like exotic zoo animals, not someone equal to them, no matter what JKR wants us to believe.
I think I get this one. JKR's idea is that Muggles are the grownups, who care about boring things like making drills. The wizards are eternal children, who dress gaudily and care about fun things like dragons. And the readers (who were assumed to be mostly children, before JKR's ego got too large and she decided that she was writing about the Eternal Questions and everyone should read her books) are supposed to get a huge kick out of seeing the wizards not only go around being childish, but considering the "grownups" to be the silly and clueless ones.
Of course, this is hard to combine with preaching against racism. That's the complaint I keep coming back to - JKR is trying to do too many things at once.
If we are to believe that the majority of the Wizarding world are half-bloods, that is.
Well, you're a halfblood even if you descend from several generations of people who lived purely in the wizarding world. And doesn't descendents of Muggleborns count as halfbloods? So there wouldn't have to be a lot of wizards meeting and falling in love with Muggles - once the "taint" is in, it can only spread, since the offspring of a pureblood and a halfblood isn't a "three-quarter-blood" but another halfblood.
I can't believe I'm defending Rowling. Now I feel dirty. ^_^;;
Reply
Yep. And fitting people into four boxes based on their personality when they're 11 y.o. is just as stupid as racial segregation. Also, the Hat seems v. susceptible to student opinions--why else would Hermione be sorted into Gryffindor instead of Ravenclaw? She wants to be in Gryffindor because that's supposedly Dumbledore's House.
JKR's idea is that Muggles are the grownups, who care about boring things like making drills.
Hmm...so Mr. Weasley is like a child playing grown-up. I see what you mean.
It disturbs me how HP villains is so...Roald Dahl. But in Roald Dahl it's expected because it never pretends to be real :-3
I'm ashamed to admit that before I got involved in fandom, I assumed that HP is third-person pov instead of Harry's biased pov. I think people outside of fandom also shares the same assumption--thus their conviction that Snape is zomgEVIL!111
the wizards not only go around being childish, but considering the "grownups" to be the silly and clueless ones.
*nods* They naively think Muggle wars don't affect them.
Sure, Voldemort and D.E.s can kill random Muggles here and there, but Muggles have nuclear bomb on their side ^^;;
Well, you're a halfblood even if you descend from several generations of people who lived purely in the wizarding world.
No...as far as I know, Rowling follows the Hitler meter of blood purity. If you're 15/16 pure (only one Muggle great great grandparent), you're a pureblood.
And so far in canon, the people labeled as "half-bloods" have one Muggle/Muggleborn parent.
I can't believe I'm defending Rowling. Now I feel dirty. ^_^;;
lol. You can spork a fic to get the taste out of your mouth X-D
Reply
It is, isn't it, thereby giving Rowling a chance to talk ponderously about us being defined by our choices. Honestly, there's a reason why there are things kids just aren't allowed to do, and never mind what they say they want - it's beacuse it takes a while before someone is old enough to know what they want, and see the implications of it.
I've got a rant brewing about the use of free will in fiction, which is based at least partly on Rowling. Let's see if I can produce something that I'm not ashamed to post... =]
It disturbs me how HP villains is so...Roald Dahl. But in Roald Dahl it's expected because it never pretends to be real :-3
I was quite fond of Roald Dahl when I was a kid. :) And yeah, his villains fit his stories, as they were purposefully silly stories. =]
I'm ashamed to admit that before I got involved in fandom, I assumed that HP is third-person pov instead of Harry's biased pov.
Don't be. JKR agrees with Harry 100% often enough to justify the mistake. The only time he's wrong is when she's trying to slip something by the reader. =]
Sure, Voldemort and D.E.s can kill random Muggles here and there, but Muggles have nuclear bomb on their side ^^;;
We can definitely make bigger BOOMs than the wizards could ever dream of. =]
I think our main advantage would be information, though. We have radio, telephones, the Internet - a great deal faster and more secure than owls. We have databases, whereas wizards apparently don't even have card catalogues. We'd work more efficiently together and we'd keep better track of them than they could of us.
Technically, wizards would have the upper hand in a face-to-face fight... but the thing is, I've seen what DEs are like in battle. I pretty much think a SWAT team could take them. =]
And so far in canon, the people labeled as "half-bloods" have one Muggle/Muggleborn parent.
Ahhhh... I withdraw my objection, with great relief. =]
Reply
It's my weekly dose of sistermagpie and mistful has started commenting on the entries recently.
Reply
Reply
Reply
It's nice to read well thought out theories/meta/commentary, but then I end up questioning my existence I'm not cracking down on my own WIPs as it is D:
But yeah I love sistermagpie's posts. I'm mostly in fandom for fic though. (Was there ever any question?)
Reply
Yep, I still clearly remember the years when I was so sure I wouldn't fall off and die, etc. I liked to climb roofs when I was a kid X-D And walk on the top of tall walls.
I've got a rant brewing about the use of free will in fiction, which is based at least partly on Rowling. Let's see if I can produce something that I'm not ashamed to post... =]
Post it! Your posts (and flyingskull's) are always well thought out, I end up not knowing what to comment except "I agree" a lot of times *g*
And yeah, his villains fit his stories, as they were purposefully silly stories. =]
My favorite Dahl (both the protagonists and the antagonists) is Matilda, hands down. Trunchbull (sp?) is _fun_. And I love the TV adaptation too where Danny DeVito plays Matilda's father.
JKR agrees with Harry 100% often enough to justify the mistake.
Yeah...that is true. Except when Hermione is right and Harry is wrong, lol. I definitely think Hermione's right about Snape.
I think our main advantage would be information, though. We have radio, telephones, the Internet - a great deal faster and more secure than owls.
Or Patronuses (Patroni?)--first of all you need to be able to cast a corporeal Patronus *eyeroll*
Whereas even a three-year-old can be taught to speed-dial a phone to call for help.
We have databases, whereas wizards apparently don't even have card catalogues.
That just doesn't make sense. I suspect Rowling never uses a card catalogue or smth X_x;;
I mean, Nicholas Flamel--they could've just asked Madam Pince and she'd most definitely know who he is. Or they could've read Wizarding Who's Who and Flamel must be on top of the list...
I've seen what DEs are like in battle. I pretty much think a SWAT team could take them. =]
lol, too true.
Reply
Ahhhhh, hence the kindship with Bran. (*laughs*) I think I was always rather too chubby and clumsy for climbing, but yeah, I remember never being very impressed with my parents' reasons for not letting me do what I wanted, too. I was sure they must be mistaken, what with the world clearly existing for my benefit and all. =]
Post it! Your posts (and flyingskull's) are always well thought out, I end up not knowing what to comment except "I agree" a lot of times *g*
*beams* Thank you. :D I posted it - go see. I'm afraid no Potter got in there, though. In fact, I was mostly inspired by this, ahem, discussion I was having with flyingskull earlier this week. -_-
I really do need to think of something to say about HP, though. At least one person has friended me for the novelty value of being someone who doesn't like HP, and I would hate to disappoint. ^_^; Maybe I should read GoF again. I'm bound to find something new to hate... =]
My favorite Dahl (both the protagonists and the antagonists) is Matilda, hands down. Trunchbull (sp?) is _fun_. And I love the TV adaptation too where Danny DeVito plays Matilda's father.
I was very fond of Matilda. I considered myself something of a brainiac in school - I guess I could relate to being understimulated and underappreciated. ;)
And yeah, DeVito was hilerious. :D "This much for delivering a baby? Well, I'm not paying! What are they going to do, repossess the kid?" =]
I definitely think Hermione's right about Snape.
She probably is, yeah. I'm just suspicious. Snape is looking way too much like a grey character. And, I mean... we're talking about Rowling here! That one, manage a grey character? Surely not... 0_0
(*laughs sheepishly*) Though I admit that I'm almost hoping she'll mess that up, because otherwise I'm going to get Snape thrown in my face every time I argue against Rowling for the rest of my life. =] I prefer, by and large, authors to write well. But if they suck, I want them to really suck. =]
Or Patronuses (Patroni?)--first of all you need to be able to cast a corporeal Patronus *eyeroll*
Funny thing is, wizards can teleport - even weak wizards can use a Floo Network. Why do they use owls? Why don't they have Apparating postmen? Why don't they have Floo mailboxes? I mean, it'd still not be as quick as phones, but it'd be a step in the right direction. I mean, I get that owls can find the recipient even when he's on the move or in hiding (which begs the question why there is such a thing as fugitives in the wizardin world...), but for a stationairy target, they seem rather inferior to several reasonable alternatives.
Reply
(I was probably holding off on replying until I read your linked post lol).
Ahhhhh, hence the kindship with Bran. (*laughs*)
That didn't occur to me until you pointed it out!
I think I like Bran mostly because he's the one who's so easily overlooked. I mean Rob's the oldest, Sasha(?)'s the prettiest, that-other-girl-whose-name-I-forgot is a tomboy, John's the bastard.
So, who's Bran? (Before he was the seer/cripple, that is). Just a little boy who likes to climb walls =)
At least one person has friended me for the novelty value of being someone who doesn't like HP, and I would hate to disappoint. ^_^;
lol. We HP fandomers have a love-hate relationship with canon. But in the end we still love the fandom. (If we still stay here, that is).
Actually, have you reviewed DH yet?
"This much for delivering a baby? Well, I'm not paying! What are they going to do, repossess the kid?" =]
*g* I need to rewatch that.
Snape is looking way too much like a grey character. And, I mean... we're talking about Rowling here! That one, manage a grey character? Surely not... 0_0
I HATE how Snape is redeemed by The Power of Lily's Wuvv(TM)
*kills*
And gawd the whole Snape staring into Harry's eyes thing is just too, too disturbing now. Even if Snarry had not squicked me before, the Snape/Lily revelation would make me run away screaming... >_>
And so, I think she did mess that up. She messed it up further by making Dumbledore say that the Hat "sorted too soon."
*kills*
And her stupid comment that "a lot of people are the same at 40 as they were when 11." GAH! GAH GAH GAH. *sporks*
No wonder the HP series ended up this way =__=
Why don't they have Apparating postmen?
That...will be crazy cool actually. Hermes enterprises! We deliver in the twinkle of an eye!
Reply
I'm reading the book right now. And feeling silly because I should have taken it a bit easier when describing how crappy the previous books were - I used so much hyperbole that I now have no words to describe the supreme crappiness of the last book. Rowling always sucked at the high fantasy parts of the other books - this book is nothing but high fantasy parts - the suckiness level is, therefore, what one might expect. -_-
I'm also doing a read-through of Half-Blood Prince on my journal at the moment. I know, I'm copying other people shamelessly here. =] Even so, check it out if you like. :)
I HATE how Snape is redeemed by The Power of Lily's Wuvv(TM)
Oh yes. Oh yes. But on the plus side - yay, I was right about Rowling being unable to write a grey character! =] Unless you count "poor unfortunate sinner driven to desperate bravery by his yearning for the Light of Goodness in the form of Lily" as "grey characterisation" - but to me, that seems more to imply that the good characters are so good that they produce good behaviour even in evil characters. It doesn't make Snape grey, it just makes Lily even whiter.
Actually, here's a question for you. I've heard the whole Snape-spent-his-life-serving-the-memory-of-his-lost-love thing defended because "it is perfectly consistent with Rowling's view of how love works." But... Rowling's idea of how love works is so very very stupid. Love isn't some all-wonderful, all-redeeming thing. It's just a human emotion, and it can lead to good things or bad things depending on the situation.
What do you think? Is it enough that an author's writing is consistent with her beliefs? Or can her writing also be judged on how much sense her beliefs actually makes?
Reply
LOL!
And huh you are right about Rowling sucking at high fantasy parts.
I'm also doing a read-through of Half-Blood Prince on my journal at the moment.
I saw =D I probably will read along chapter by chapter when I have time. But I really should finish DH first lol. There's a DH chapter-by-chapter sporking that should motivate me to read along...
But on the plus side - yay, I was right about Rowling being unable to write a grey character! =]
LOL
that seems more to imply that the good characters are so good that they produce good behaviour even in evil characters. It doesn't make Snape grey, it just makes Lily even whiter.
Yeah...eww. Sheesh even religious people never claim that God's holiness can rub off on you =P
The washing away of sins still require blood sacrifice. So HAHA Lily totally should spill her blood to save Snape's soul.
Considering that he had known months in advance that he would die, Dumbledore should've done something _useful_ when he died. I don't know, like give extra blood protection to Harry, or for Snape, the spy that has dedicated his _whole life_ to Dumbledore's cause? ARGH. *stabs*
Rowling's idea of how love works is so very very stupid. Love isn't some all-wonderful, all-redeeming thing. It's just a human emotion, and it can lead to good things or bad things depending on the situation.
Well it's not _love_ that redeems. It's the action that love inspires. In Lily's case, she needs to die to protect Harry. And GAH why does a Muggleborn know enough of blood magic to invoke it when Purebloods remain USELESS in their deaths? *stabs*
Like stupid Pureblood James, and stupid Pureblood Dumbledore T_T
I suppose I'll forgive Cedric because he didn't have time to react before BAM! death by Wormtail. Heh.
What do you think? Is it enough that an author's writing is consistent with her beliefs? Or can her writing also be judged on how much sense her beliefs actually makes?
Nope. I have no qualms about making fun of author's beliefs, whether she states it in an interview or through her writing. In fact, I probably will feel less qualms when making fun of beliefs/morals in a story, because it's no longer the author, is it? Now that it's in the hands of readers, it's a text separate from the author.
So let's see...just as gaping plotholes and deus ex machina are annoying, beliefs/morals that are illogical/childish/one-dimensional deserve as much mocking. X-D
Reply
The washing away of sins still require blood sacrifice.
You know, I never understood that part? How can you wash away sins, with blood or otherwise? Or perhaps I should rather say - if you can be freed from your sins, but the people you've wronged are still hurting, and the harm you've done is still there, what's the point of being freed from your sins?
Considering that he had known months in advance that he would die, Dumbledore should've done something _useful_ when he died.
I'd kind of have liked him to give Harry some actual, you know, information. Instead of being cryptic and justifying it with "well, it would have been too much for you to take in all at once." I'm not sure if I should approve of Dumbledore's awareness that Harry is a moron who would have had some kind of idiotic, over-emotional reaction if he'd been told anything important, or if I should just wince at this obvious and overused plot device for withholding information from the protagonist - and therefore also the reader.
And GAH why does a Muggleborn know enough of blood magic to invoke it when Purebloods remain USELESS in their deaths? *stabs*
Oh Heavens no, she didn't know anything. Only bad people do things that they know will work - good people do the Right Thing (and of course they always know what the Right Thing is, because they're good) and then the benevolent universe makes sure that that is exactly what is needed to make everything all right.
Hence Dumbledore's sucking up to Harry and telling him Harry is a much better person than him, because Dumbledore plans and plots and Harry just follows his impulses. Gaaah. You know, it really bothers me that impressionable children read this anti-intellectual shit.
So let's see...just as gaping plotholes and deus ex machina are annoying, beliefs/morals that are illogical/childish/one-dimensional deserve as much mocking. X-D
Agreed. :)
Reply
Millenia had passed, and it was as if Harry Potter had never existed. The entire wizarding world, free ever since the fall of the Dark Lord and his Black Lady, is now united under the worship of the Pure One and His Wise Consort. Some subversive elements, however, have started to question the disconcerting hold the Pure One religion has over the wizarding world.
Blood of the Mind, Tears of the World is one of the books that dare question the Book of Purity. It argued for the fallible humanity of the Pure One and His Wise Consort, Pureblood Wizard Draco Malfoy and Muggleborn Witch Hermione Granger.
Co-authored by "Fire" and "Flower," the book was immediately banned by the Temple of the Pure. Possession of the book guaranteed an indeterminate stay in Azkaban. Authority figures who are not vocal against the book risk excommunication from the Temple.
Not much is known about "Fire" and "Flower" except that they somehow have access to many primary documents from the Second Reign of the Dark Lord. Some theorized that "Flower" is a distant descendant of the Grangers. Historians debunked this idea since Hermione the Wise, like Draco the Pure, stayed "Untouched" for the rest of her life.
X-D Haha. Fun.
Reply
*waits patiently*
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment