The Scar

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 160318

> > Carol:
> 
> > Also, I don't know where you get the idea that there are plenty 
of
> > Muggle marriages to witches or wizards. I know of three: 

Ken:
 
> Ok, lets work with those three. How many marriages in the WW do we
> know *any* detail of? Is it as many as 30? I doubt it is that many 
but
> let's say it is 30, that implies that 10% of wizards and witches 
marry
> muggles. 

Magpie:
Not necessarily.  But regardless, of the three that we hear of two 
involve deceit--the Muggle doesn't know they're married to a Witch.  
If you add Dean that's another one where the marriage is a lie.  And 
there's the woman using her husband as a table.  So out of those 
Muggle/Magic marriages they're not doing to well in terms of it 
being the same as marrying a magical person.  Obviously that 
wouldn't be a problem with Harry and Ginny, but based on what I've 
seen of their relationship it would be a major shift from Harry the 
Wizard and Ginny the Witch to Ginny and Harry the non-magical 
person.  I can't imagine their relationship lasting based on what 
I've seen of it so far.

Ken:
> Replying to the thread in general now and not Carol in particular I
> don't understand the reaction to a Harry without magic. Would not
> Harry losing his magical power be akin to losing sight, hearing, or
> limbs in the real world? Do those of you who say Harry without 
magic
> would and could have no purpose or place in either world say the 
same
> about the blind, deaf, and paraplegic?

Magpie:
No, I wouldn't--and I flatly reject trying to put it in those terms 
because it's not my society I'm imagining Harry adapting to-and also 
because this is an aspect of Wizarding Society that consistently 
bothers me. People with different physical limitations have always 
been part of our society as much as anyone else.  Harry's society is 
the Wizarding World, defined by those who have magic.  

He could certainly continue to live as a Squib, sure.  But the books 
have shown him growing up by mastering magical techniques, sometimes 
as metaphors for emotional growth.  So taking away his magic is 
taking away a bit more than one isolated physical ability. A Muggle 
Harry going to Muggle school who then loses his sight retains more 
than a Magical Harry who loses his Magic after getting a Magical 
education.

Ken:
 I doubt that many of you do. It
> would be quite a tragedy for Harry as it is for real folk who have
> faced this kind of loss but humans are resiliant and adaptable and 
go
> on to live fulfilling lives in spite of handicaps. 

Magpie:
Yes, of course.  But my point isn't that there's no point in living 
without magic.  Obviously I do it myself and sometimes am totally 
annoyed at the way non-magical people are dismissed by characters 
with magic in the books.  I don't think Muggles are inferior to 
wizards.  But if we're talking about a character in a book about the 
real world who loses his sight, even if his sight has been important 
up until that point, I have some idea of the kind of adaptation and 
adjustment he needs to make to still live like other people. This 
does not exist in Rowling's world. Doing magic is central to 
participating in Harry's world.  Squibs and Muggles barely interact 
with Wizards, and when they do it's not as equals.  Harry's entire 
education mostly comes down to learning how to do this spell and 
that spell.  It's all erased if he no longer can do any magic at 
all. 

Ken:
One of our greatest
> living astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, has been reduced to a 
barley
> functioning physical shell by ALS, yet his mind is as brilliant as
> ever and comparable to the great minds of history and legend. He 
still
> holds a revered place in the world and contributes to his field at 
the
> highest level. Why would we expect any less from Harry or 
ourselves?
> Harry seems to want to be an auror. If he had no magic he could 
not be
> an auror in the usual sense. He could still work in the auror's 
office
> though in much the same way as muggle police detectives work. A 
brain
> can be more effective than a wand for catching criminals even 
though
> those who can use a wand are required in the actual capture.
> 


Magpie:
He could if the author devoted herself to a book creating this 
possibility, but since she has not so far carved out that 
possibility I don't think it's been properly prepared for.  You're 
imagining how it could work, but the requirements for Aurors are 
clearly laid out in canon as all involving magic. (And Harry's not 
always been primarily a detective.)  The place of people without 
magic has also been so far laid out.  There are no Stephen Hawking 
equivalents in the WW, Squibs who are brilliant in some respected 
field in the WW. I can't imagine Muggle!Ron explaining SH's 
condition in the same terms he does Filch's in CoS.  One would hope 
that an intelligent Squib could show Wizards that s/he had something 
to offer, but if Harry would to do that he'd have to come up with it 
himself.  Stephen Hawking does the same physics as anyone else.  
Walking isn't a requirement for all jobs.

-m