[HPforGrownups] Wizarding culture/ attitude to arms

[MariaJ]

No: HPFGUIDX 43486

Eloise wrote:

> You are far too modest. You express yourself extremely well.

Thank you. /blushing furiously/

> I think it *is* intentional and I get the feeling that there are aspects of
> the Tough, macho wizard mentality that JKR doesn't like. It's too linked up
> with that proper wizarding pride thing which is criticised at the end of GoF.

(snip)

> I'm pretty sure that part of Harry's coming to full maturity as a wizard and
> as a man will involve his acceptance of the fact that he *can* cry, that
> being fully human and admitting his vulnerability does not make him any less
> strong or any less of a wizard. I hope we're going to see the WW beginning to
> realise the same thing.

I hope you're right. I feel that by Book 7 what we'll see is a realisation
that some of the more flagrant injustices in the WW is wrong. The House Elfs
will be liberated. People like Hagrid and Lupin will contribute to the
Second Fall of Voldemort and prove that outcasts like them can be heroic
etc. The kind of changes you're talking about though (the Tough, macho
wizard mentality isn't a good thing, wizards can say sorry, crying is ok and
so on) - that's changing the whole society at its roots. Changes like that
don't come easy and they take time. Generations. Considering wizards and
witches live much longer than muggles do, it'll probably take even longer
for the attitudes to die out. I'm not so sure we'll see any of *that* by
Book 7.


Eloise again, on an entirely different subject:

> Which begs the question, doesn't it, of at what stage a wand becomes an
> offensive weapon. At what point is a curse a curse too far?

Let's muddy the waters even more. :)

Harry uses the Furnunculus curse and George Jelly-Legs (the only two jinxes
named) on the train at the end of GoF. Both seem to be fairly harmless
(boils and jelly legs), so is it the fact that they're five against three
that makes this incident seem much worse than the other times Furnunculus
and Jelly-Legs are used?

Not to mention all the duelling. In CoS Harry and Draco face each other
under "safe" circumstances and although it all goes horribly wrong with the
snake, no one is saying the duelling is Wrong. The other time Harry uses the
Furnunculus curse (GoF18), when Goyle gets boils in his face and Hermione's
teeth grow, Snape giving Harry detention isn't unfair because he's giving
Harry detention (they're not allowed to do magic in the corridors) but
because Draco doesn't get detention also. So in one instance throwing curses
at each other is Right and the other time it's Wrong. The second time the
wand is clearly a weapon and it's used as such, the first time it's a...
what? A duelling wand? And what's the difference?

And (ooo, I came up with another one) is there a difference depending on how
good or bad the wizard/witch is at wand-magic? Harry seems to be fairly good
at Charms, while Neville isn't. Does that make Harry's wand more of a weapon
than Neville's wand?

Which didn't actually answer your question, Eloise. Sorry.



Carol Bainbridge wrote:

> I don't see how the wizarding world is and more or less messed up than the
> Muggle world -- our world, that we live in now.  I see the same kinds of
> attitudes toward different groups of people all the time.

I agree with you and I never said the wizarding world was more messed up
than our world. If you got that impression I'm sorry, that's not what I
meant. The real world and the wizarding world are both messed up, sometimes
in the very same way (all the things you mentioned), sometimes not.

And I think the attitude towards bullying would be one of those 'sometimes
not'. Here in Sweden most schools have some sort of plan about how to deal
with bullying (I even think there's to be a law that they have to have such
a plan, but I'm not entirely sure). Whether these plans actually work is an
entirely different matter (there's been a lot of horrific cases here the
last years with children and teenagers going up against their schools,
reporting bullies, or maybe I should say attackers because we're talking
assault here, to the police, taking their schools to court and lots of
bone-headed principals who dismiss everything as children playing a little
rough, but they're *children* and they mean no harm...), but at least these
plans exist. 

I don't think Hogwarts has one of these plans though, or Beauxbatons or
Durmstrang (definitely not Durmstrang) and I seriously doubt they would
understand what the use of a plan like that was. Bullying exists in the real
world as well as the wizarding world - in fact, I'd say that at this stage
Draco or Snape at their very worst haven't come even close to some of the
stories told on this list (by Elkins and Shaun I think - sorry if I remember
wrong) or what those children I mentioned above had to go through. It's just
that, even those bone-headed principals admitted that bullying existed (they
just didn't want to admit it existed at their school), but I'm not so sure
even Dumbledore, that most enlightened of muggle-lovers (no sarcasm
intended), would see the need for A Plan Against Bullying.

The realisation that something is wrong doesn't in any way make it all
better (if it did there would be no bullying at Swedish schools), but it's
better than nothing. It's the first step. What I'm trying to say (and I'm
not sure I'm succeeding) is that I'm not sure the wizarding world has taken
that first step, and actually the bullying is a small problem compared with
the House Elfs, the Justice System, the attitude towards muggles etc, and
they don't seem to see anything wrong with that.

Um, okay, stepping down from the pulpit now. Sorry, I didn't mean to direct
that rant at you, Carol. To get back to what you actually wrote, no, I don't
think the wizarding world is more messed up than our world. Just, in some
cases, differently messed up. There's a lot of problems that are the same in
both worlds, but the extent to which those problems are recognised as
problems differ a lot. Imho.
  

Carol again:

> JKR has said that she believes her books are like mirrors.  They reflect
> the beliefs of the reader. She said this in response to the criticism that
> her books were evil, but I think it can go beyond that.  I think her books
> are definitely like mirrors, reflecting our world.  What I like so much
> about them is that in spite of all the unfairness, injustice and downright
> cruelty, it is still the positive qualities of life that wins out in the
> end: courage, friendship, love, loyalty, responsibility, innocence.  It may
> not work so easily in the real world, but it sure feels good to me when it
> works in the HP books!

All those things (courage, friendship etc) is one of the reasons I love the
HP-books and re-read them on a regular basis. Reading about Harry finding a
Home at Hogwarts (because I think Harry thinks of Hogwarts as Home with a
capital H) and making friends, makes me all weepy and happy. I love Ron and
Hermione, and I love that they're friends with Harry. I adore the Weasleys,
all of them, even the ones that annoy me, and I love to hate Snape (I do
not, however, find him sexy). However, this is no way makes me feel any less
uncomfortable about the more unpleasant aspects of the wizarding world. That
I do feel uncomfortable even makes the books *better* for me.

Let me be honest: if JKR had written PS/SS and CoS and then stopped writing
I would have read them, laughed a lot, and that would have been it. It's
when I read PoA and especially GoF, when she started to dig below the
surface, show us the rest of the society, introduce us to the injustices and
wrongs of the WW, that I decided that JKR was a much better author than I
had given her credit for after reading the first two books. She makes me
happy and sad and angry and uncomfortable and occasionally full of warm,
fuzzy feelings that I can't put a name to (aaah, Harry is going to live with
Sirius, how sweet) - all at the same time. That, in my opinion, is what
makes her great.

In other words (and, yes, I know I'm strange) when I say I think the
wizarding world is seriously messed up, that's not meant as a criticism of
the HP-books. It's a compliment.



Rebecca said:

> I don't want the Muggle and Wizard world to be united,
> I just want some Muggles involved.  Let Hermione's
> parents, or Collin Creevy's dad help, or at least be
> involved.  And yes, I understand that they have
> innocuous professions.  Let it be other kid's parents,
> let it be cops or military.  Just let some Muggles be
> involved in the downfall of Voldemort.

Let me go off on a different tangent: Voldemort is supposed to be this big
threat, right? He's not out to destroy the world or anything like that, but
he does want to take over. Or something. I have to admit I'm a bit hazy on
what Voldemort actually wants, except kill Harry, harass muggles and, eh,
humiliate his Death Eaters. Now, if his objective really is to take over the
world (i.e. Britain) then sooner or later muggles will become aware of this.
It's not as if the Good Guys can run around making Memory Charms on everyone
who's seen something, then they won't have any time to actually fight
against Voldemort, which has to be the top priority after all.

Of course, it all depends on what Voldemort actually wants. Or rather, how
far JKR is going to let it go. She may write Voldemort as if he wants to
take over the world, that doesn't mean it's ever going to be an outright
war, but only skirmishes between wizards and a final duel between Voldemort
and Harry. Then muggles would never have to find out.

See how nicely I destroy my own arguments. :)

MariaJ