the Nature of Magic - Thin - Child Abuse - Multiculturalism -

[Catlady]

No: HPFGUIDX 20465

Amber wrote:

> One instance that I can think of that deviates from this rule
> is in Joel Rosenburg's Guardians of the Flame series. In  it,
> there are specific types of people: wizards, thieves, warriors,
> elves, dwarves, and clerics. Within this world, if a cleric
> becomes  strong enough, they are able to bring the dead
> back to life. Granted,  it takes tons and tons of time and
> energy and sacrifices, but it is possible.

Sounds like the character classes in D&D (the original frpg -- sorry,
that's *Fantasy*  Role Playing Game). In D&D, a dead character can be
brought back to life by an Unlimited Wish or the gamemaster's whim,
because some people just get unbearably heartbroken if their long-time
character is killed.

Jami wrote:

> Which makes me wonder if the younger Weasleys would
> be much more powerful, had they not all had to use
> hand-me-down wands.

We don't actually know that anyone but Ron had to use a hand-me-down
wand. It makes sense that the older kids would get newer stuff than the
younger kids. First, fewer older sibling to get hand-me-downs from.
Second, a family has more money when there are fewer kids needing to be
equipped for school (because the ones still in the nursery don't need
uniforms, textbooks, etc). For what it's worth, Fred and George had
Comet 260s and Ron had only a Shooting Star.

Ginny is even younger than Ron, but would have an advantage at getting
clothes bought new for her: she's the only girl. As for wands, maybe the
parents bought her a new wand when they bought Ron a replacement for the
used wand he broke.

Danette Schardt-Cordova wrote:

> Well Ron does seem to do a lot better when he gets his
> old wand replaced (PoA) so I would think you are right

Ron's used wand wasn't really screwed up until he broke the tip off and
tried to fix it with Spellotape. Not even Superglue. What is a wizarding
pun on Superglue?

Lindsay Stirton wrote:

>  Of course, Japanese wizards might invent a cheap black
> plastic digital time-turner that  runs off eclectricity!

Part of the nature of Potterverse magic is that electric and electronic
devices don't work around Hogwarts because the magic fields are too
intense and screw up the devices (Hermione said so in GoF). Therefore, I
doubt a device that works by magic can use electricity, even as
pronounced by Mr Weasley.

FB mentions a Beast that IIRC eats magic, and says that when there is no
magic around, it infiltrates Muggle electric devices, thus explaining
why brand new purchases already don't work. Looks to me like two clues
that magic and electricity are somehow related forces/particles.

A list member said something that understanding electricity makes it
even MORE magical: WHY do the positive and negative charges attract each
other? I didn't answer then, but now: electromagnetism and gravity are
two manifestations of Eros (primordial force of love / attraction),
which Hesiod said was the first-born son of Night:  Night, Nyx, having
hatched spontaneously from Chaos, parthenogenically born Eros, which
organized the Chaos into Matter. I mention it now because, if magic and
electricity are related, magic must also be a form of Eros.

Rebekah  catz109 wrote:

> which makes me wonder- when you lot first read the
>  books, did you just read it, and think "Oh no, that isn't right,
> JKR called Dudley fat" or "How come the nerdy ones all wear glasses"

When I first read the books, I noticed that she made the loathsome
Dursleys fat (the words saying the Petunia was thin came in through the
eyes but didn't stick in the brain), and soon thereafter there were some
loathsome fat people among the Slytherins, and I was annoyed at the
fat-is-evil symbolism. Also at the looksism of making all the Slytherins
ugly. Of course, I am as fat as Dudley and as ugly as a hag, so I am
particularly sensitive on that subject.

I also wear glasses whenever I'm awake and out of the shower ( I've worn
them since I was 10 years old and needed them long before that) and all
I've noticed about glasses-wearers in HP is that there seem to be a lot
of them: why can't these magic folks fix their eyesight by spells? I
don't recall having noticed even that on first reading -- and I just now
this minute had a THOUGHT: MAYBE the way that Dumbledore can see Harry
through the Invisibility Cloak is because those spectacles he wears way
down on his nose are magic spectacles?

On first reading, I noticed on page 52 that Harry talks back to Dudley
-- he has some spirit left, that wasn't beaten out of him, he isn't a
boring little plaster saint -- which was the first thing I loved about
the first book. I noticed girls on the Quidditch team with happy
feminist delight. I noticed with pleasure that the girl co-protagonist
didn't have model-type looks (and was annoyed by apparent Mary-Sue-ism
when she turned into a beauty for the Yule Ball in GoF).

Robert wrote:

> Mrs Dursley's described as thin at the start of PS,
> and by POA she's "bony".  If she's achieved this
> without a diet, I hate her -

Maybe she has a wasting disease. (I share your feelings about her.)

Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote:

> (a lovely man was arrested here in NYC for sodomizing his
>  fifth grade male students just a few weeks ago)

If he used a toilet plunger, then his MOTIVE was to hurt them, which
seems somewhat analogous to Snape, but if he used his penis, then
probably his motive was his own sexual gratification, and the hurt and
harm that he didn't mind doing to the kids was just incidental. I am not
saying that being callous about hurting and harming victims as a
side-effect is less evil than being eager to hurt and harm victims, just
that it seems less analogous to Snape's vicious treatment of students.

Ebony wrote:

> Forced multiculturalism is not authentic IMO and useless
> in teaching children how to live. (snip) I really like the way
> Rowling handles ethnicity--she mentions it, then lets the
> kids act like all the other kids instead of venturing into
> dangerous ethnic stereotypes like too many writers do.

IMHO race is a matter of physical appearance and pedigree, while culture
is a learned system of thought and behavior. I therefore am disturbed by
the modern use of 'multicultural' to mean 'multiracial', as in Crayola
coming up with a set of crayons in human skin, hair, and eye colors and
naming it the Multicultural pack

I imagine that British wizard-born students are all from the same
culture, British wizarding culture, regardless of their race, but the
Muggle-born students might come from different cultures, 'mainstream'
cultures of region and social class, immigrant and 'minority' cultures.

I don't know about UK, but in US, a writer is in a double-bind: if she
portrays the black or Asian characters as just the same as the white
characters except for their appearance and names, she is condemned for
ignoring their unique African-American or Asian-American culture and
turning them into Oreos/bananas. But if she tries to show the white,
black, and Asian characters acting according to their different cultures
(e.g. the white guests arrive too early for a multi-racial party thrown
by a black hostess), then she is condemned for stereotyping.
--
          /\ /\
           + +     Mews and views
         >> = <<         from Rita Prince Winston

                     ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
                     `6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.`)
                     (_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._ `. ``-..-'
                    _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
                   ((('   (((-(((''  ((((