"Mudblood"

[annemehr <annemehr@yahoo.com>]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Audra1976 at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/01/2003 19:13:03 Eastern Standard Time, 
> HebrideanBlack2002 at h... writes:
> 
> > I have noticed people using the term "mudblood" to refer to 
muggle-born 
> > students. 
> <snip>
> Am I just taking this waaaaay too seriously? 
> > <G>
> 
> Me:
> Wendy, 
> Stop reading your HPfGU mail.  Hide your books and toys.  Take the 
audio 
> books and soundtrack out of your stereo, and ground yourself from 
Harry 
> Potter for a couple days.  LOL!  Yes, you *are* taking it far to 
seriously, 
> IMO.  
> 
<snip>

> You're blurring the line between fiction and reality.  The word 
"Mudblood" 
> means nothing to us in reality.

You know, I am going to join the ranks of those who think it's better 
to use "muggle-born" instead of "mudblood."

Why? Not because there are any actual Muggle-borns to offend, but 
because in HPfGU we delve into the Potterverse *as if* it were real.  
We use up great amounts of bandwidth and megabytes of memory 
discussing how many students Hogwarts has, *why* Snape hates James so 
much, who the *heck* is Avery, as if they were extremely important 
(and they certainly are! <g>).  If we are so into this universe, why 
would we want to call people like our beloved Hermione by a very 
nasty (within this universe) name?  Besides, if we keep using 
"mudblood" in all our discussions of muggle-borns, it may well become 
like a neutral word to us, so that when we read it in JKR's text it 
will cease to be as shocking as it is meant to be -- we will have lost 
part of the nuance of the story.

Not the biggest deal in the world, I suppose, but still...

Annemehr
who had also been a bit bothered by the use of "mudblood" on the main 
list...