A far-fetched analysis of the Prophecy

[nimbus_2003_au]

No: HPFGUIDX 70163

> 
> Lissa replied:
> The Hitler comparison is a natural one that even JKR has made (as 
> I'm sure you know).  The thing is--and I don't have those posts at 
> hand, so I can only assume they were referencing the suspicion Hitler was 
> partly Jewish himself--I believe it's been soundly refuted that Hitler 
> actually had any Jewish ancestry.  Though this fact strips some historical 
> irony from his existence, it does *nothing* to diminish the horror of his 
> beliefs or the evil of his actions.  (If you're referring to the 
> idea that dark-haired Hitler idealized a blond, blue-eyed look, ignore 
> the past few sentences.  Clearly, that irony remains.)
> 
> Also, if my theory proves correct, I don't think the fact that Tom 
> is wrong about his belief that his father was a muggle means that his 
> actions are not a result of self-loathing.  What he believes to be 
> true is the only relevant factor in that regard.
> 
> My biggest reaction to your point remains the one I alluded to 
> above: it does not matter what Tom's blood is or what Harry's blood is or 
> what Neville's, Ginny's, Seamus's, Petunia's, Draco's or Dudley's blood 
> is. As you said, the series' main point is that blood doesn't matter. 
 
> I find it ironic, therefore, that you're suggesting that it should 
> matter in Tom's specific case.  (I realize text can come across really 
> coldly, so please understand that I'm saying this to you without sarcasm or 
> any sort of condescension.  Truly, I respect your points and I 
> understand why you feel the way you do.  I'm just hoping I can persuade you  
> to view the situation from another angle.  I am absolutely NOT suggesting 
> you subscribe to the idea that blood determines a person's worth.)  The 
> books really could not condemn pureblood bigotry any more firmly 
> than they presently do.
> 
> 
> Kirstini wrote:
> 
> > just as Neville 
> > turning out to be "the One" would deny that "yer don't have teh 
> > be a pure-blood" to succeed.
> 

> Lissa replied:
> Hermione is smart, compassionate, insightful and beloved.  I don't 
> think Rowling is trying to teach us that you have to be a pure-blood to 
> succeed. (grin)
> 
> I know you disagree with my theory, Kirstini, but you do so with 
> such great style that it's actually a pleasure to read.  Thanks for 
> making me think.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Lissa B

Lissa and Kirstini,

I really appreciate the fantastic exchange here.  Great to read 
people arguing definitely and respectfully... and I hope you won't 
think I'm butting in, but the following points occurred to me...

1/ Maybe pureblood-dom is determined by the female parent. Harry's a 
pureblood since his mother was a witch, as with Voldemort.  
Hermione's mother is a muggle... anyway, just a thought

2/ Perhaps, as with all bigotry, the definition is fluid depending 
upon who you are trying to exclude.  Slytherin blood *excuses* one 
muggle parent... or being the second-generation of a magical lineage 
means you're pure... depending on if you're someone rich's cousin or 
not.

3/ Mediaeval literature has a number of myths of the 'fair unknown' 
(the most famous one is Mallory's Sir Gareth of King Arthur fame) 
where (in Potterdom terms) an outsider - non-pureblood - comes in and 
seems to take over, threatening the status quo.  Then he is revealed 
to have been a pureblood all along, so that's all right then.  Modern 
storytelling has adopted a humanist ideal where the outsider is 
accepted without needing to be a pureblood after all.  I think 
Rowling is exploiting the tension of the two traditions, and as I see 
Dumbledore as very much the moral-humanist voice of the story, I 
expect we'll see modern narrative win out, and the subtext will 
continue to condemn 'blood-ism'.

Regards,

N03au