Potterfic: An unbiased review of a likewise evenhanded book.
So I started collecting notes for some kind of meta or essay or babbling or something like that. And, on the way, my brain got hijacked by a bored teenaged wizard.
I just hate it when that happens, only I don't really.
Therefore, here is a random piece of Potterfic. Yep yep. In case anybody was wondering, I really like feedback a lot. And I'm subtle, too.
Note: all definitions and quotes are taken from the actual text of Fantastic Beasts, published in 2001 to raise money for Comic Relief UK. The only change I've made is to exclude one sentence from the werewolf definition, which reads as follows: There is no known cure, though recent developments in potion-making have to a great extent alleviated the worst symptoms. This omission is on account of the fact that Sirius's edition of the book wouldn't have any mention of the Wolfsbane potion, which was invented some time later.
"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: a book review
(alternative title: Newt Scamander is a bit of a bastard and even I know more about how to present objective facts than he does so it's a bit of a joke for us to have to act like he's some kind of authority)"
a two-parchment essay for Care of Magical Creatures
by Sirius Black, fourth year Gryffindor
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a cracking good textbook because it is light and the cover is sturdy enough to get used as a flyswatter when the screening charms on the dormitory windows act up in humid weather. My aunt Andromeda told me that if I couldn't find anything nice to say I should just keep my mouth shut or I'll end up with something nasty and uncomfortable happening to me one of these days, so I'm not going to mention any of the rampant stupidity that the reader is confronted with if they're unlucky enough to actually open this bloody stupid book.
For starters, there's hardly anything in it. Counting the different sorts of dragons as individual 'beasts', we're still only offered eighty-four different animals here. This not at all comprehensive list can be perhaps attributed to the fact that Scamander talks on and on and on in several different introductions before he gets to these so-called 'fantastic beasts'.
The first of these introductions we get is the always-masturbatory 'about the author' section. And I can say 'masturbatory', can't I? I mean, it's not like I used one of those slang terms that are technically swear words or anything. I didn't say 'bloody wanky' or 'revealing the writer as a hairy-palmed broom-servicer', or 'reads like he's had two ribs removed to he can work on his parselmouth skills unaided' or any of those atrociously uncouth phrases that would have absolutely no place in a homework essay, especially a homework essay done as a detention. But 'masturbatory' is all right, isn't it professor? I don't see why not.
Anyway, the 'about the author' section. Scamander reveals that he is "almost solely responsible for the creation of the Werewolf Register in 1947". Considering that few areas of magical creature classification are more contentious than the question of werewolf rights, I think it's pretty rich that the chap who devoted himself to treating a bunch of people like they were some kind of nasty bathroom grout with no rights or anything to be the one who now gets to write a book which is used to educate young wizards and witches about what kinds of beasts are dangerous. Seriously, professor, that's not really very comforting, is it? I know if some crazy git spent lots of time setting up a system to catalog everybody in the world who had red hair and then wrote a book telling... my analogy's a bit muddled and I forget now where I was going but is this really the sort of literature we should be forced to refer to? I've half a mind to complain to the headmaster, only seems like Dumbledore's pretty chummy with the Scamander guy. Can't imagine why, because he seems like a bit of an idiot. Scamander, that is. Dumbledore's all right, especially when he revokes three weeks of detentions which are completely undeserved and it's not like the Slytherin common room didn't already smell like fertilizer and rubber shavings before I accidentally left that package in there anyway. Not that Dumbledore's ever actually revoked a detention like that, but I hear there's some kind of saying about there being a first time for everything.
After 'about the author', we get an introduction about 'what is a beast?', the other option being 'being'. Scamander says that a being is "a creature worthy of legal rights and a voice in the governance of the magical world", and then later on refers to the 1811 definition which classifies "any creature that has sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws" as a being.
But when Scamander lists different animals that make the two categories difficult, the first animal he singles out for his own ridiculous and petty attention is werewolves. Because, honestly, it's not like they've got enough problems to worry about without some doddery old bigot getting his knickers in a bunch at the thought of them being treated like ordinary people. Scamander says "Werewolves spend most of their lives as humans (whether wizard or Muggle). Once a month, however, they transform into savage, four-legged beasts of murderous intent and no human conscience."
How's that for "when did you stop beating your wife" tactics in argument, eh? He claims to be exploring the problematic nature of a two-category division process and yet he uses the word 'beasts' as if it's fact. And murderous intent? There's a whole lot of plain ordinary two-legged 'beasts' who're humans all the bloody time who kill other people. Since when do humans automatically have a conscience? If I wasn't writing an essay and I could speak freely, I'd say it's all a load of narrow-minded bollocks. But, unlike Scamander, I know where my personal opinion's better left on the shelf, so I'll stick to purely the facts.
Later in the Beings versus Beasts waffling, Scamander says "werewolves, meanwhile, have been shunted between the Beast and Being divisions for many years; at the time of writing there is an office for Werewolf Support Services at the Being Division [in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures] whereas the Werewolf Registry and Werewolf Capture Unit fall under the Beast Division". Which just goes to show what horrible garbage can come of squidbrains like Scamander making up rules and definitions. Because, in the end, what all that gibberish about Beings and Beasts and having offices in both means is that werewolves don't get the rights and respect that Beings are supposed to be entitled to, but they don't get the protection and care and consideration that Beasts get under wizard law. It's all stupid and horrible and if I had another package of rubber shavings and fertilizer I'd divide it up into lots of smaller parcels and send it to all the old tossers who think like Scamander. I'd need a lot of the stuff, and do you know why? Because their stupid way of thinking is never challenged, and people read it and end up thinking it's just the way things are! It's disgusting! This book should be banned.
Eventually, we get to these ruddy 'beasts'. And there, under W, what do we find? That's right, "werewolf", right between "unicorn" and "winged horse". Guess that whole debate about Being vs Beast didn't happen in Scamander's little list, did it? The definition for "werewolf" is as follows:
Werewolf: The werewolf is found worldwide, though it is believed to have originated in northern Europe. Humans turn into werewolves only when bitten. There is no known cure. Once a month, at the full moon, the otherwise sane and normal wizard or Muggle afflicted transforms into a murderous beast. Almost uniquely among fantastic creatures, the werewolf actively seeks humans in preference to any other kind of prey.
Now, the first bit's all right, though wasn't there debate a while ago about possible North American origins? But it says "believed", so I guess I'll let it pass without comment. So long as the author admits that it's just opinion, I'm not going to grumble. Not as much, anyway.
This 'sane and normal' still bothers me, though. And 'murderous beast', again! Maybe Scamander just really likes the way the words look together.
The last part is the thing that gets me, though. "Almost uniquely", you say, Mister Bigot-idiot-slimeball-gitface? You rotten liar. There are only eighty-four creatures listed in the book, right? I went through and made a list of all the ones which are referred to as preferring people as a snack. Not all the ones that were dangerous to people, or all the ones which sometimes hurt people. No, these are just the ones which Scamander, Mr Almost-uniquely, points out specifically that the animal in question likes a bit of Soylent Green in their daily diet. (That's a Muggle movie, by the way. A movie's a really long and complicated moving picture that they sit in the dark and watch on Saturday afternoons. They eat popcorn while they do it. I asked a mate of mine to explain why that was such an important part of it and he just shrugged. Muggles are weird, even ones with wizard kids. Soylent Green is a story about eating people, anyway. That's why I mentioned it. Wouldn't want you to think I was getting off the topic at hand.)
Here's the list, with the appropriate part of the definition included for reference:
Chinese Fireball (Dragon species) - "prefers pigs and humans."
Hungarian Horntail (Dragon species) - "feeds on bats, sheep and, whenever possible, humans."
Peruvian Vipertooth (Dragon species) - "has such a liking for humans that the international confederation of wizards was forced to send in exterminators."
Erlking - "high-pitched cackle that is particularly entrancing to children, whom it will attempt to lure away from their guardians and eat."
Kappa - "feeds on human blood." [no other food's mentioned, so by way of omission one can assume that this is their sole dietary source]
Kelpie - "having lured the unwary onto its back, it will dive straight to the bottom of its river or lake and devour the rider."
Lethifold - "once its prey has been successfully suffocated, the Lethifold digests its food there and then in their bed." [only human victims are mentioned, and since 'in their bed' is specified as the place of attack it's safe to say that a lethifold's diet is people all the way]
Pogrebin - "attracted to humans... will leap upon them and attempt to devour them."
Quintaped - "a highly dangerous carnivorous beast with a particular taste for humans."
Hags - "in search of children to eat."
Know how many that is? Ten. In a list of 84. That's approximately 12%, professor. How, exactly, are werewolves 'almost unique'? It's prejudice and it's rotten and it has no place in schools.
There's a footnote on the werewolf entry, too, which mentions that "when there is no full moon, the werewolf is as harmless as any other human". Have you even seen Kingsley, the Ravenclaw Beater, during a Quidditich match? Oh, yes, humans are completely harmless. Right-o, I'll tell that to my arm the next time it's nearly broken by a bloody Bludger.
But the footnote doesn't stop at that. "For a heartrending account of one wizard's battle with lycanthropy, see the classic Hairy Snout, Human Heart by an anonymous author." First of all, I wonder if it's ever occurred to Scamander that maybe it's anonymous because werewolves are frightened of flobberworm-headed idiots who couldn't tell their arse from their face with a map. I bet 'anonymous' had all kinds of stuff he could have spent royalties on, like a new cauldron. Did you know, professor, that forgetting even a little bit of scouring potion overnight can burn a hole right through the bottom of a cauldron? I felt really dreadful when that happened to a friend of mine, because I'd borrowed his equipment without asking and he wouldn't let me pay for a new one even though it was my fault his old one got ruined. I bet if something like that happened to anonymous then he'd buy a new cauldron and the friend who'd accidentally ruined the old one wouldn't feel guilty anymore.
And "heartrending"? Don't talk to me about heartrending, you stupid bastard of an author. What do you know about heartrending, when you're the one treating them like they've got the plague?
Since I'm almost at the required inch-length for this, I'll conclude my review: This book is tripe, and I mean that in the least complimentary way possible. It's nasty, stupid, full of lies and half-truths and stupidity and I already said that, didn't I? That it's stupid. But detentions are supposed to be awful and irritating and annoying, so I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything easy or fun. Honestly, though, this was downright dreadful and I hope in future I can just stick to having to clean out cupboards and bathrooms and punishments like that. Moaning Myrtle's got a bit of a thing for me, I think.
I just hate it when that happens, only I don't really.
Therefore, here is a random piece of Potterfic. Yep yep. In case anybody was wondering, I really like feedback a lot. And I'm subtle, too.
Note: all definitions and quotes are taken from the actual text of Fantastic Beasts, published in 2001 to raise money for Comic Relief UK. The only change I've made is to exclude one sentence from the werewolf definition, which reads as follows: There is no known cure, though recent developments in potion-making have to a great extent alleviated the worst symptoms. This omission is on account of the fact that Sirius's edition of the book wouldn't have any mention of the Wolfsbane potion, which was invented some time later.
"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: a book review
(alternative title: Newt Scamander is a bit of a bastard and even I know more about how to present objective facts than he does so it's a bit of a joke for us to have to act like he's some kind of authority)"
a two-parchment essay for Care of Magical Creatures
by Sirius Black, fourth year Gryffindor
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a cracking good textbook because it is light and the cover is sturdy enough to get used as a flyswatter when the screening charms on the dormitory windows act up in humid weather. My aunt Andromeda told me that if I couldn't find anything nice to say I should just keep my mouth shut or I'll end up with something nasty and uncomfortable happening to me one of these days, so I'm not going to mention any of the rampant stupidity that the reader is confronted with if they're unlucky enough to actually open this bloody stupid book.
For starters, there's hardly anything in it. Counting the different sorts of dragons as individual 'beasts', we're still only offered eighty-four different animals here. This not at all comprehensive list can be perhaps attributed to the fact that Scamander talks on and on and on in several different introductions before he gets to these so-called 'fantastic beasts'.
The first of these introductions we get is the always-masturbatory 'about the author' section. And I can say 'masturbatory', can't I? I mean, it's not like I used one of those slang terms that are technically swear words or anything. I didn't say 'bloody wanky' or 'revealing the writer as a hairy-palmed broom-servicer', or 'reads like he's had two ribs removed to he can work on his parselmouth skills unaided' or any of those atrociously uncouth phrases that would have absolutely no place in a homework essay, especially a homework essay done as a detention. But 'masturbatory' is all right, isn't it professor? I don't see why not.
Anyway, the 'about the author' section. Scamander reveals that he is "almost solely responsible for the creation of the Werewolf Register in 1947". Considering that few areas of magical creature classification are more contentious than the question of werewolf rights, I think it's pretty rich that the chap who devoted himself to treating a bunch of people like they were some kind of nasty bathroom grout with no rights or anything to be the one who now gets to write a book which is used to educate young wizards and witches about what kinds of beasts are dangerous. Seriously, professor, that's not really very comforting, is it? I know if some crazy git spent lots of time setting up a system to catalog everybody in the world who had red hair and then wrote a book telling... my analogy's a bit muddled and I forget now where I was going but is this really the sort of literature we should be forced to refer to? I've half a mind to complain to the headmaster, only seems like Dumbledore's pretty chummy with the Scamander guy. Can't imagine why, because he seems like a bit of an idiot. Scamander, that is. Dumbledore's all right, especially when he revokes three weeks of detentions which are completely undeserved and it's not like the Slytherin common room didn't already smell like fertilizer and rubber shavings before I accidentally left that package in there anyway. Not that Dumbledore's ever actually revoked a detention like that, but I hear there's some kind of saying about there being a first time for everything.
After 'about the author', we get an introduction about 'what is a beast?', the other option being 'being'. Scamander says that a being is "a creature worthy of legal rights and a voice in the governance of the magical world", and then later on refers to the 1811 definition which classifies "any creature that has sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws" as a being.
But when Scamander lists different animals that make the two categories difficult, the first animal he singles out for his own ridiculous and petty attention is werewolves. Because, honestly, it's not like they've got enough problems to worry about without some doddery old bigot getting his knickers in a bunch at the thought of them being treated like ordinary people. Scamander says "Werewolves spend most of their lives as humans (whether wizard or Muggle). Once a month, however, they transform into savage, four-legged beasts of murderous intent and no human conscience."
How's that for "when did you stop beating your wife" tactics in argument, eh? He claims to be exploring the problematic nature of a two-category division process and yet he uses the word 'beasts' as if it's fact. And murderous intent? There's a whole lot of plain ordinary two-legged 'beasts' who're humans all the bloody time who kill other people. Since when do humans automatically have a conscience? If I wasn't writing an essay and I could speak freely, I'd say it's all a load of narrow-minded bollocks. But, unlike Scamander, I know where my personal opinion's better left on the shelf, so I'll stick to purely the facts.
Later in the Beings versus Beasts waffling, Scamander says "werewolves, meanwhile, have been shunted between the Beast and Being divisions for many years; at the time of writing there is an office for Werewolf Support Services at the Being Division [in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures] whereas the Werewolf Registry and Werewolf Capture Unit fall under the Beast Division". Which just goes to show what horrible garbage can come of squidbrains like Scamander making up rules and definitions. Because, in the end, what all that gibberish about Beings and Beasts and having offices in both means is that werewolves don't get the rights and respect that Beings are supposed to be entitled to, but they don't get the protection and care and consideration that Beasts get under wizard law. It's all stupid and horrible and if I had another package of rubber shavings and fertilizer I'd divide it up into lots of smaller parcels and send it to all the old tossers who think like Scamander. I'd need a lot of the stuff, and do you know why? Because their stupid way of thinking is never challenged, and people read it and end up thinking it's just the way things are! It's disgusting! This book should be banned.
Eventually, we get to these ruddy 'beasts'. And there, under W, what do we find? That's right, "werewolf", right between "unicorn" and "winged horse". Guess that whole debate about Being vs Beast didn't happen in Scamander's little list, did it? The definition for "werewolf" is as follows:
Werewolf: The werewolf is found worldwide, though it is believed to have originated in northern Europe. Humans turn into werewolves only when bitten. There is no known cure. Once a month, at the full moon, the otherwise sane and normal wizard or Muggle afflicted transforms into a murderous beast. Almost uniquely among fantastic creatures, the werewolf actively seeks humans in preference to any other kind of prey.
Now, the first bit's all right, though wasn't there debate a while ago about possible North American origins? But it says "believed", so I guess I'll let it pass without comment. So long as the author admits that it's just opinion, I'm not going to grumble. Not as much, anyway.
This 'sane and normal' still bothers me, though. And 'murderous beast', again! Maybe Scamander just really likes the way the words look together.
The last part is the thing that gets me, though. "Almost uniquely", you say, Mister Bigot-idiot-slimeball-gitface? You rotten liar. There are only eighty-four creatures listed in the book, right? I went through and made a list of all the ones which are referred to as preferring people as a snack. Not all the ones that were dangerous to people, or all the ones which sometimes hurt people. No, these are just the ones which Scamander, Mr Almost-uniquely, points out specifically that the animal in question likes a bit of Soylent Green in their daily diet. (That's a Muggle movie, by the way. A movie's a really long and complicated moving picture that they sit in the dark and watch on Saturday afternoons. They eat popcorn while they do it. I asked a mate of mine to explain why that was such an important part of it and he just shrugged. Muggles are weird, even ones with wizard kids. Soylent Green is a story about eating people, anyway. That's why I mentioned it. Wouldn't want you to think I was getting off the topic at hand.)
Here's the list, with the appropriate part of the definition included for reference:
Chinese Fireball (Dragon species) - "prefers pigs and humans."
Hungarian Horntail (Dragon species) - "feeds on bats, sheep and, whenever possible, humans."
Peruvian Vipertooth (Dragon species) - "has such a liking for humans that the international confederation of wizards was forced to send in exterminators."
Erlking - "high-pitched cackle that is particularly entrancing to children, whom it will attempt to lure away from their guardians and eat."
Kappa - "feeds on human blood." [no other food's mentioned, so by way of omission one can assume that this is their sole dietary source]
Kelpie - "having lured the unwary onto its back, it will dive straight to the bottom of its river or lake and devour the rider."
Lethifold - "once its prey has been successfully suffocated, the Lethifold digests its food there and then in their bed." [only human victims are mentioned, and since 'in their bed' is specified as the place of attack it's safe to say that a lethifold's diet is people all the way]
Pogrebin - "attracted to humans... will leap upon them and attempt to devour them."
Quintaped - "a highly dangerous carnivorous beast with a particular taste for humans."
Hags - "in search of children to eat."
Know how many that is? Ten. In a list of 84. That's approximately 12%, professor. How, exactly, are werewolves 'almost unique'? It's prejudice and it's rotten and it has no place in schools.
There's a footnote on the werewolf entry, too, which mentions that "when there is no full moon, the werewolf is as harmless as any other human". Have you even seen Kingsley, the Ravenclaw Beater, during a Quidditich match? Oh, yes, humans are completely harmless. Right-o, I'll tell that to my arm the next time it's nearly broken by a bloody Bludger.
But the footnote doesn't stop at that. "For a heartrending account of one wizard's battle with lycanthropy, see the classic Hairy Snout, Human Heart by an anonymous author." First of all, I wonder if it's ever occurred to Scamander that maybe it's anonymous because werewolves are frightened of flobberworm-headed idiots who couldn't tell their arse from their face with a map. I bet 'anonymous' had all kinds of stuff he could have spent royalties on, like a new cauldron. Did you know, professor, that forgetting even a little bit of scouring potion overnight can burn a hole right through the bottom of a cauldron? I felt really dreadful when that happened to a friend of mine, because I'd borrowed his equipment without asking and he wouldn't let me pay for a new one even though it was my fault his old one got ruined. I bet if something like that happened to anonymous then he'd buy a new cauldron and the friend who'd accidentally ruined the old one wouldn't feel guilty anymore.
And "heartrending"? Don't talk to me about heartrending, you stupid bastard of an author. What do you know about heartrending, when you're the one treating them like they've got the plague?
Since I'm almost at the required inch-length for this, I'll conclude my review: This book is tripe, and I mean that in the least complimentary way possible. It's nasty, stupid, full of lies and half-truths and stupidity and I already said that, didn't I? That it's stupid. But detentions are supposed to be awful and irritating and annoying, so I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything easy or fun. Honestly, though, this was downright dreadful and I hope in future I can just stick to having to clean out cupboards and bathrooms and punishments like that. Moaning Myrtle's got a bit of a thing for me, I think.