(Untitled)

Jul 11, 2004 18:17

Leave a comment

Comments 73

amberdiceless July 12 2004, 13:33:30 UTC
Hrm. So you're saying in a nutshell that Tom's philosophy is "Muggles are bloody dangerous people; they do all sorts of horrible nasty things to one another, and what's to stop them doing similar horrible nasty things to us? Let's take them out with extreme prejudice, before they get the chance."

If I were to compare that attitude to any real world leader's, it sure as hell wouldn't be Hitler...

Reply

amberdiceless July 12 2004, 13:35:59 UTC
[Pardon, should have mentioned that I found y'all via the Daily Snitch.]

Reply

tabellae July 12 2004, 15:23:27 UTC
... what a very good point. And that sits well with me, since I find both Voldemort and any sort of doctrine of pre-emptive war to be morally wrong.

Reply

adjectivegirl July 12 2004, 15:36:46 UTC
Hee. Can't imagine who you're talking about.

Reply


ataralas July 12 2004, 14:46:08 UTC
(in from the snitch)

I can accept that Muggles pose a fatal threat to the wizarding world. I can accept that a violent revolution might be in order to rid the wizarding world of Muggles/and or Muggleborns. However, that begs the question, what do you do with all the Muggleborn wizards that will continue to be born every year? If its not known until they are ten or eleven that they are wizards, what are you going to do with them? Kill them? Deprive parents of their child after eleven years? That, to me, seems worse than the state of the wizarding world, its anachronisms, prejudices, and hierarcies included.

Reply

tabellae July 12 2004, 15:27:43 UTC
I'm not sure. Perhaps Voldemort intends to ignore them entirely - perhaps he believes that Muggleborns are distantly related to purebloods and figures they'll stop occuring. Perhaps he's got a plan of kidnapping the children. I wouldn't put it past him - if the Voldemort of my essay is the right one, then he's proved himself to be absolutely ruthless in the quest for his goals.

Reply

ataralas July 13 2004, 12:53:49 UTC
I guess, then, that with the huge "if" you've given us, at that point--the issue of what to do with Muggleborn children, innocents most of them--is where I say that Voldemort becomes wrong, if he chooses to kidnap/murder them. If his will to purge the wizarding world is that great that he must resort to henious crimes year after year--not just one revolution to overthrown the wizarding government--to accomplish his goal, if he has not thought far enough ahead to consider the effect on innocents who happen to be, through no action of their own, Muggleborn wizards, then, at that moment, he loses the right to perpetuate his revolution.

And I do understand that it all fits in with his view of the Muggle world being totally depraved. I'm saying that at that point, that is the killing /kidnap of children, I will no longer defend his right to defend his world.

Anyway, thanks for a though provoking entry.

Reply

saeva July 12 2004, 22:15:46 UTC
According to canon a magical quill writes down the name of every child capable of attending Hogwarts at their birth.

For some reason this list doesn't seem to be publically accessible or people like the Longbottoms don't want to check it and admit they're worried about having a Squib in the family. However, that doesn't mean it *couldn't* be checked and then the children adopted into the wizardry world and magical families shortly after their births.

Because it is known at birth, with that quill, then I presume that'd be the idea, at least.

- Andrea.

Reply


adjectivegirl July 12 2004, 15:39:39 UTC
I think this is a great essay, especially in the sense that it connects Tom and Voldemort rather than keeping them diametrically opposed. Neither may much like each other, but Tom's childhood during practically the worst modern England had to endure definitely made a difference.

Reply

tabellae July 12 2004, 15:51:04 UTC
The disconnect between Tom and Voldemort was one of the driving forces in making me write this essay. I basically thought, "Why would a clever boy like Tom believe such idiocy as Voldemort spouts when he knows better than any wizard what Muggles are capable of?"

Reply


no_remorse July 12 2004, 18:13:59 UTC
I have post somewhere on the subject of the house-elf plot and why the elves "like to serve." My basic point was that the house-elf plot is the Muggleborn allegory version 2.0. Only this time we get to see the other side's reasons and truths.

The problem with the muggleborn/racism metaphor is that it is so ultra-obvious, yet so removed from reality that you don't have to apply Rowling's metaphor on real life racism, if you don't want to. The reason why it is so removed from reality, is that that bad guys don't get to voice their (reasonable) objections to muggleborns - everything is boiled down to "mudblood, die, die."

Personally I believe that reasoning the muggle(born) phobia with the fear and security risk, they pose, would be potentially make the muggleborn/racism metaphor very, very much applicable to real life. So much that it would be a political statement. Alas,unfortunately that's not the case. < /ever so slightly tangential>

Reply

arwencordelia July 12 2004, 21:11:51 UTC
Personally I believe that reasoning the muggle(born) phobia with the fear and security risk, they pose, would be potentially make the muggleborn/racism metaphor very, very much applicable to real life. So much that it would be a political statement.

That's a really good point, and not entirely tangential, I think. Voldemort must have started somewhere...Sirius' brother Regulus was drawn in by Voldemort's ideas. It wasn't until he joined that he found out belonging to this group meant killing and torturing other human beings.

What better way to recruit followers that to exploit a fear of something that really is a potential threat. People tend to be fear things they know little about, as well... and we all know how knowledgeable wizards are when it comes to Muggles.

Reply


demeter918 July 13 2004, 00:24:23 UTC
I generally agree with your points, but I have some strong, negative feelings on several points you make. The camp for Voldemort's position is smaller and inevitably, more on the defensive since the majority of the fandom will always side with the conventional good. Questioning whether Dumbledore and his 'right' is a good thing; don't get me wrong there. Saying only one point of view is right is not only boring, it creates an absolutism that can border on eventual fanaticism ( ... )

Reply

tabellae July 13 2004, 10:04:29 UTC
Perhaps I'll edit it to make clear that I in no way support the violent methods of the Death Eaters - several others have commented saying that I appear to, and that wasn't my intention at all. While I tried to keep moral judgements out of the piece, if pressed I would judge his aims as reasonable but his methods as abhorent.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up