AK, male tears, looong cross-cultural rant

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 29211

Milz:
> What if the AK Curse not only kills the victim, but also tranfers the 
victim's powers to the curser? If it does, then that would explain 
why Voldemort went around killing powerful wizards and witches (per 
Hagrid). That leads me to speculate that maybe Voldemort was getting 
more powerful in order to battle Dumbledore. Maybe absorbing Harry's 
magical power would have given Voldemort that little bit extra  to 
defeat Dumbledore?<

Ooo, interesting thought.  So what does this mean for the AK curse that rebounded from Harry?  Did Harry, in fact, absorb all of Voldemort's powers when the curse failed, making him special and powerful and dangerous as a result?  Has V now lost all the power he was collecting and must he now kill off a lot of powerful wizards again to regain it??  Phew.  Though that would explain his weak performance against Harry so far.

Cindy:
> To be complete, I have to mention the grieving of Mr. and Mrs. 
Diggory.  He cries; she doesn't.  I really, really appreciated this.  
Also, Hagrid cries a great deal -- way too much in my opinion.  I 
would like him better if he could "suck it up" sometimes.  Also, 
Harry would have been doing a bit more screaming in the graveyard 
scene had he not had a rag stuffed into his mouth.<

Actually now you mention it, I took special note of the Diggorys as well (perhaps because it stood out as unusual).  Note that in the examples people mention it's the adult males who are doing the crying.  Could be because teenagers are at a stage where they're keenly aware of the rules of behaviour in their society (which is why they get so embarrassed by their parents' shaming ways), and can very hard on people who don't follow them correctly (teasing, bullying, social rejection).  And yes, I did forget Hagrid, who's pretty weepy as Cindy points out, but then his lovable, bumbling, all heart and no head ways are central to his character.  Draco, of course, is scathing about Hagrid's tears.

(I once wrote a sonnet about male tears called "Man of Rust"...)

Catherine in California:
> Tabouli's post was interesting on so many levels but, as an American and 
having just returned from overseas, I was fascinated by the American 
stereotypes presented.
One thing I feel compelled to note is that when you say "American", you're 
need to deal with several stereotypes.  We have several.<

AAARRRGH, this is what happens when I launch informally into cross-cultural spiels without my weaponry! (that is, carefully organised activities to reveal people's own cultural values to them, bell diagrams explaining how individuals relate differently to cultural norms depending on their demographic background, illustrations, worksheets...)  It's always risky when you try to do a large scale comparison of two countries without all these things, because unless you're organised and crafty what I call the "generalisation police" are always quick to point out regional differences, class differences, ethnic group differences, individuals who are well outside the norm, etc.etc.  This happens without fail in cross-cultural training sessions and I have devised all manner of ways of addressing it, but didn't bother on this list (thought I might swing it, but no, Catherine's onto me!  :D )

> "Greater Christian influence".  Maybe somewhere other than 
California.  Rule breakers are glorified here in the media and in both the 
celebrity and sports world (same thing?) as the cool rebel 
types.  Wholeheartedly monotheistic made me laugh out loud since I know a 
bunch of Wiccans, Druids, shamans, etc...<

OK, let me explain further for the sake of saving face, then shift to OT after this.  I'm well aware that the US has marked regional differences in the areas I mentioned, and that a lot of Americans are not Christians.  However, the influence of the Protestant values which are deeply built into American institutions (the law, the education system, etc.etc.) is nonetheless very apparent in US media, values (freedom, individualism, universalism, personal choice, civil rights, etc.), institutions, and even in people who have overtly rejected some of the cultural norms, such as Wiccans, druids, shamans and so on.  Most Australians are consciously secular, but still have a basically Christian values system, even though they wouldn't identify it as such.  I say this even though I know a lot of overtly, devoutly Christian Australians (my mother is a Christian), and quite a few pagans, Wiccans, Jews and spiritualists (two of my close friends are, respectively, pagan and spiritualist).

Cultural values are linked to the *messages* societies promote about what is good/bad, right/wrong, attractive/unattractive, moral/immoral, and they are, even in a country as diverse and regionally different as the US, reasonably generalisable on a national level, especially in a country with a pervasive media and established education system (where there are agreed on landmarks about what children should be taught and how, etc.).  The great majority of people in a country receive these messages. What they *do* with them depends on individual factors, such as whereabouts in the US they live, their age, their sex, their personality, their income and social class, their religion, their cultural background, their level of education, etc.etc.  A lot of people consciously reject prevailing social values in areas that are important to them, but they have usually subconsciously taken on board cultural values in areas which aren't as important to them.  The regional stereotypes Catherine mentions are the result of regionally defined patterns of responses to American cultural values.

One more thing I should mention is that I'm comparing "Americans", in a vague amorphous body, with "Australians".  There are no doubt great intra-cultural differences between the way Californians and, say, Texans, apply the rules, but Australians are operating from a different rulebook.  We do have a lot of rules in common with the US, but there are some key differences which come up every time someone moves between Australia and the US, in either direction.  Keeping the above comments about generalisation in mind, here's some illustrations.

The classic difference is respect for authority.  Australians are reputed to be among the most difficult people to manage in the world because of their attitudes to authority (i.e. a position in itself commands only token respect until the person in it has earned their personal respect).  US managers arrive in Australia and find Australian staff almost unmanageable (even Californians!  My father's company is based in California, and staff travelling between California and Australia are always having cross-cultural problems).  American students arrive here, used to calling lecturers "professor" or "sir/ma'am" etc. and are disconcerted to hear their Australian peers addressing their lecturers by nicknames.  Respect for ideologies also comes under this - feminism is fighting an uphill battle here because Australians are so reluctant to take anything seriously (middle class American women are often shocked when they come here and attribute this to Australia being "behind" the US, but it's not that simple).  People from the US tend to be more upfront about their achievements because of their more achievement-oriented society - in Australia, this gets interpreted as pushy and arrogant, because of their society's general intolerance of  high achievers widespread enough to have a name - the Tall Poppy Syndrome.

On the other hand, Australians go to the US and end up offending everyone because no-one has the map for the self-deprecating, cynical, understated Australian sense of humour, so they get taken literally.  They don't promote themselves or cultivate the "polish" Americans are used to (compare Australian and American movies, bands, stars, etc., e.g. Russell Crowe vs Tom Cruise), because they would see this as conceited and pretentious, but Americans are apt to see this as lacking drive and sophistication and enthusiasm, and they therefore don't get promotions, etc.  And so on.  And so on.

Sorry Mods, I've drifted waaay off topic here, but um, well, can I call this further elucidation of my comments about US objections to the English HP?  Because of course, Australia and England have more in common culturally, for historical reasons.  And um (she says, rummaging in the barrel for some more straws), we can see evidence of this in the way JKR writes about rules and authority figures in HP, and the praise of Daniel's understated performance in the celluloid unmentionable.  (see?  see?  All threads can ultimately be woven back into HP...)

(erm)

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]