Or at least, they're making assumptions about the events that are completely unreasonable to make, such as "Muggles being treated as if they have no agency" is actually JKR's position. It's almost as though they actually think that JKR is from a secret society of witches and really believes that us lowly muggles are dumb and should have our memories erased.
I certainly don't recall anyone giving even implicit approval to Hermoine's decision to oblivate her parents. The point was, people make difficult and often ethically dubious decisons in a war situation. If you can't grasp that... then you might try something a bit more on your reading comprehension level.
I hear "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" is pretty good.
I'm rarely hair-raising-on-the-back-of-my-neck creeped out by people getting tattoos, but a Dark Mark - hell yes. *IS CREEPED*
It reminds me all too well of those "I'm racist in Harry Potter, not real life" people - they don't grasp the way in which JK Rowling used the parallels between her fictional world and our real world to illustrate the dangers and the effects of prejudice based on entirely false ideas, as well as the way in which prejudice can be taken to its logical extreme in the form of the ideology of Death-Eaterism as exemplified by Voldemort.
A friend of a friend of mine has a dark mark tattoo. She's a huge HP fan (although as far as I know, she's never ventured into online fandom, she just really likes the books & movies) but I admit to being all O_o at the choice of tattoo.
Actually, Draco was my favorite character for a few reasons. One, because if JKR was trying to make him a flat black-and-white villain, she failed IMO.
Good thing that's exactly the opposite of what she was trying to do then. Good lord.
It sounds like they demand their "good guys" be spotlessly pure as well. I've seen this a lot in fandoms. I've never read a book in which the good characters were absolutely pure and always made the correct moral choices, and in which their culture was also perfect. I can't imagine what such a thing would look like.
I do have some problems with the treatment of Muggles in the narrative, and I actually consider the wizarding attitude to them in the series to be realistic and interesting. Then again, I'm not from s_d :p
-LoneWolfEburg, who really tries HMS STFU's collective patience by acting as a dissenting voice in this thread.
...OMG... Seriously? God forbid an author writes about a realistically (despite the presence of magic.) flawed world, filled with realistically flawed people that in the end remains flawed but is a little better off than it was... Fucking hell grownups really do ruin everything...
Getting a dark mark tattoo would probably be fun to try and explain to future employers: "Yeah, I identify with evil groups in children's literature so much that I permanently etch into their signs into my skin."
That aside, alula_auburn's mini-essay is one of the most pretentious things I've ever read. It's like she used the postmodernism generator.
I am so looking forward to reading a bunch of comments here from white women who are trying to more sensitive-than-thou. You guys love to wank about how Snapefen can't distinguish fact from fiction. Guess what? The Dark Mark is also FICTION. As a non-white woman, I couldn't care less whether somebody had a tattoo of the DM.
And to compare a gang of evil wizards from a series of childrens books to the true horror of fascism just really trivialises fascism.
Also, different strokes for different folks. I know it's shocking, but sometimes readers have different opinions on HP. I for one thought the Voldemort = Nazi comparisons were really badly handled, and very inconsistent. As somebody from a country with a long colonial past the House-Elf and Goblin storylines annoyed me to no end.
Uh..guys...I know some of what alula_auburn said is the same stuff Snapefen have said in order to bash JKR, but some of it is pretty spot on. I've done a lot in defending some of the analogies in the books, but I can still point out the flaws in how the JKR handles issues of race and the situation with house elves/non-human beings.
That said, I'm pretty apathetic if someone wants to get the dark mark. My only worry is if you're someone who actually believes in their ideology, or try to defend the evil's in the books in order to defend your favorite character and also bringing up real life racism into the mix as we've seen done before. But there are some people who would want it just because it's the world of HP. It's still fiction after all.
I remember when sf_d and SF used to be actually good.
The Marietta point they raise over there is valid, though. Kind of a dick move on Hermione's part, and I believe JKR has indicated she doesn't see anything wrong with it.
Really, her only interest is in demonstrating that Muggleborns are THE SAME as purebloods, which conveniently ignores the real significance of a continual influx of Muggleborns (and in theory, although not in JKR world, their Muggle families) into a closed society with a high level of interest in geneology and familial politics.
No, that's not the point. The point is that Wizards need to stop thinking that they're necessarily better than Muggles. I think it's called "prejudice".
So, right off the bat, she's missed the enitre point of what she claims is a flawed metaphor. And the rest of the comm is just piling right in after her.
It completely overlooks the question of "well, suppose people ARE different than us. . .do they deserve to be treated with respect as well?"
The books: "Yes! Yes they do!"
One, because if JKR was trying to make him a flat black-and-white villain, she failed IMO.
Because the scared, conflicted young man we say in HBP was so flat.
Blah blah Harry filter blah blah not main character blah blah.
Okay this is my personal pet peeve, especially when people are trying to be lit crits or just intelligent:
Communism is not fascism. Communism is not fascism.Communism is not fascism. Saying that you've done many such studies on fascism and the Holocaust doesn't mean you know shit about communism. Communism is the liberal extreme of fascism's conservative extreme. They are that different. At most you can bring them under the umbrella of shitty things to do to your country, or totalitarianism.
Secondly: KNOW YOUR GENRE I don't know why people miss this and then look at the political and moral implications of something. Sure, you can do that, but it always seems to as though you missed the entire point to me. This is just like a lot of post-WWII children's brit lit. Frankly, it's not supposed to glom completely onto the Nazis very well; it's supposed to give the kids who read it a very real sense of the horror that can often get lost when you don't want to be too violent with your villains. WWII left an huge jagged scar on Britain considering how badly they were doing until the end; they're not appropriating as much as you think.
Muggles are a more complicated issue than I think is being made out. The question is not are muggles allowed personal agency. The question is are you allowed to protect your way of life and society from others whom you have in the past known to try to destroy you in any way necessary. Is Magic an undue advantage in such a struggle (Ethiopia beat an armed France with spears, just saying. And I still think guns and bombs beat magic right now)? Are you allowed to continue to use such an excuse, when you have no knowledge of if this is still true? In addition, memory charms isn't the best example. Gilderoy Lockhart used memory charms on magical people too and it is treated just as cavalierly as well as Snape on that Order member. They're not really lording it over muggles only or view it as sacrosanct for magical people. And I don't think Hermione's decision was viewed as a good thing, especially considering she was about to cry (from guilt really).
Well one could chose to see houses as such. But (Hufflepuff?) Fudge seems to have no problem with Slytherin Lucius Malfoy, which seems to suggest that this is much less about houses than about behavior, and that being in a house that groups behavior unfortunately reinforces that behavior so much that it identifies the house. At least that's what I got and what I thought the resorting comment meant. I also got the sense that Voldemort screwed the perception of Slytherin over since that's where he came from and where he mainly recruited, since no one seem to have any sort of mistrust of Slytherins or Tom in his diary flashbacks. Of course I also saw that there was that annoying Hufflepuff Smith, but that Cedric treated Harry better than some of his Gryffindor associates. Or how, besides them saying certain houses where in the DA, you couldn't immediately tell who was from which house by action alone. But you can be offended on how you see it all you want.
Well, personally in DH, I thought the whole House Elves plotline was about respect. Giving Kreacher some respect, for his feelings, desires, anger, got them what they needed. Kreacher relating this to the Hogwarts elves got them elves willing to fight. You can't change how the elves see themselves and their place, you can only change how you treat their decisions. I did have a problem with Hermione however. I think this is one of her greatest failing. As much as she wants equality for all, she comes at it the way she comes at everything: superior and condescending. However, I think the problem about other magical races is that there is a classification system which is impossible to implement without screwing over someone. Wizards are going to feel superior because nothing will ever leave them out of the "Being" classification, whereas it is that way for other magical races. I don't think this is supposed to be considered fair (Magical Beast certainly indicated that it is not).
I was furious with Harry when he decided to lie to the gnome about the Gryffindor sword. I don't recall him ever being called out for being a giant jerkass piece of shit over it either.
Talk about not being able to read. (First of all--Griphook is a GOBLIN, not a gnome, which is a small garden pest.) So, it wasn't enough that Harry actually, you know, FAILED to put one over on Griphook and didn't get to keep the sword after all? That Bill was right about not trying to pull a fast one on a goblin? Harry actually getting his comeuppance IN THE TEXT in terms of what happens isn't enough for them? What did they want, for a character to point and laugh and say, "Yah, yah, Harry, you got exactly what you deserved for trying that!" JKR did it right--she SHOWED, she didn't TELL, which is something these yobs claim is the opposite of what she always does and yet when she shows instead of telling they complain about the lack of telling.
Am I, as someone who once (what, Lumos '07?) presented a paper on how the HP series invited the faux-"progressive" set to declare themselves like, totally the opposite of racist and fascist and all that shit while not living up to it, supposed to be pro- or anti- this post? I mean, when the options in the book are "watery center-right pretending to be progressive" and "fuck that shit", I really can't blame some people for choosing the latter even if they're in a position declared nonexistent by JKR.
So, what am I supposed to think, here? I've actually had a friend or two who've considered getting a "Dark Mark" tattoo -- none of them white, all of them sociali$ts. Are they supposed to apologize to JKR for falling outside her model of acceptable wizarding politics (a.k.a. far-right to faux-left center-right)?