Prejudice

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 70535

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random <random832 at r...> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, Jul 15, 2003, at 06:06 America/Indianapolis, naamagatus 
> wrote:
> 
> > And I don't understand on what you base your suspicion of 
the "dirty 
> > blood" explanation. It is the only one given to us in the books, 
after 
> > all.
> 
> First of all, it's much simpler that it's just a contraction. 
Second, 
> the explanation has a similar "feel" to it as people in the real 
world 
> saying that the use of the word "black" implies something more 
sinister 
> than dark skin (i've heard of people saying, with a perfectly 
straight 
> face, that it _originated_ from people claiming that 'black people' 
> were evil, and that the skin color was secondary)


Why is it simpler that it's a contraction, exactly? Maybe I've missed 
an explanation of this in previous posts? 

I can't argue against the "feel" you get from the term. Obviously. 
However, I'd like to point out that your information regarding the 
term "black" comes from various sources in the real world. You can 
therefore make a considered judgement as to the true meaning of this 
term: based on your encounters with the way various people use it. 
That is not the case with "Mudblood." It exists only in the 
fictitious world invented by JKR, and she has provided us with one 
and only one account of its meaning - when Ron explains to Harry and 
Hermione that it means dirty blood (in CoS). (In fact, since it is a 
term invented by the author, this functions as a dictionary 
definition.) *Nothing* that happened before or after put Ron's view 
in doubt. 
If JKR were to turn around now (four books later!) and say, "oh, 
remember "Mudblood", way back in book two, where Ron said that it 
meant dirty blood? Well, it doesn't. It is actually a contraction of 
something else and isn't really a very bad thing to say ....". Well, 
it would be just incredibly bad story telling on her part, don't you 
think? 

In fact, this is a point which I think should be kept in mind 
generally. It is bad story telling to present an unchallenged account 
(of anything, but particularly of something that the author invented) 
and then, a long time after, flip the meaning upside down. Look at 
how JKR dealt with house elves. She presented us with many different 
and contradictory accounts of house elf servitude - Dobby's, Ron's, 
Hagrid's, Hermione's and others. She has carefully prepared the 
ground for a final denoument regarding house elves; what it will be 
is open for debate - but that's just the point, that the author 
presented it as such (unlike the "Mudblood" issue, which isn't). 

In other words, we can't just cast doubt on any statement and account 
that are presented in the books on the grounds that maybe the 
character is mistaken or lying - unless there are good grounds *built 
in the narrative* for that kind of skepticism (e.g., the character 
has lied before, another character made a contradicting statement, 
the statement flies against common sense knowledge, etc.).



Naama