Muggleborn vs Pureblood

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 168828

> Magpie, quoting:
> >"Harry was very relieved to find out that he wasn't miles behind 
everyone 
> >else. Lots of people had come from Muggle families and, like him, 
hadn't
> >had any idea that they were witches and wizards. There was so 
much to learn 
> >that even people like Ron didn't have much of a head start."
> 
> Bart:
> And that is where she forces it in. She gives three basic aspects 
to casting magic:
> 1) Knowledge
> 2) Physical technique
> 3) Natural ability. 
> 
> Now, had she shown #3 to be much more important than #1 and #2, 
then there would have been no inherent contradiction. But she does 
not. 

Magpie:
I think she says that #1 and #2 are not tied to being raised Magical 
or the first 11 years of your life to the extent that someone who 
doesn't have that is statistically less likely to excel in magical 
studies. You say that the point is that it being wrong to judge 
individuals based on the statistic doesn't make the statistic false, 
but JKR, who creates the world, seems to be saying the statistic 
isn't true either. And also, more importantly, trying to demonstrate 
it at every level. 

To go back to the analogy you made earlier, you said: 

"Let me put it another way. Let's say you have two people, both 
genetically suited to be great athletes. One lives in a home where 
everybody plays sports, eats healthy food, and exercises. The other 
is strapped in a high chair, fed a diet of Moka Cola and Winkies (to 
avoid using trademarks), with the television always playing, until 
he or she's 11."

But in this situation you're saying you've got two people who were 
genetically suited to be great athletes, but while one lived in a 
healthy lifestyle that therefore kept his body in better shape, the 
other had a lifestyle that caused the body to deteriorate. That puts 
the second person at a disadvantage.

Muggleborns get their magic at the same time as kids in the Magical 
world, at which time they begin learning spells along with kids in 
the magical world. Some magically-raised kids may start learning 
about some magic sooner because they've got the knowledge around, 
but the knowledge is just as open to Muggle-borns after the age of 
11, and not all magical kids do that. While being raised in a 
healthy way to begin with may make you more likely to continue to 
have healthy habits later in life, Muggle-borns seem more like 
people simply transplanted to another country at a fairly early age. 
The habits that would, imo, most likely influence where they are in 
school would, imo, have more to do with study habits and learning in 
general than with seeing other people do magic, which they 
themselves would not have been able to do at that time either. Is a 
person who never rode in a car until they were 11 destined to 
statistically have more of a chance of being a bad driver when they 
begin learning at 16 than a person who sat in cars from 1-11? 

As I said I can certainly see the logic of what you're saying, but 
since canon states upfront that you're wrong, and shows no signs of 
what you're claiming must happen, what relevance does it have to the 
story? If you're just saying you don't buy the book's premise that's 
something else--personally when I think of Muggle-borns the weirdest 
thing missing for me is that they don't bond together in any way or 
in any way show up as a recognizable group in the school the way 
that, for instance, the kids from the other schools do in GoF. It's 
interesting for me to ask why this doesn't happen or comment on 
maybe it not being so realistic, but I don't see how to apply it to 
what's actually going on.

In this case what you call doublethink seems more like a difference 
in understanding of exactly what the experience of starting Hogwarts 
is like for first years. You assume that being raised in the 
Muggleworld has left them with flabbier magical muscles and an 
inability to really instinctually get it; Rowling seems to approach 
it more like a regular school. Muggle-borns have the same magical 
capacity, they have the same brain, they begin learning and doing at 
the same time. They don't have a difference in knowledge or physical 
technique. There are too many factors here that you can't really 
speak with authority on because we don't really understand it.

> Bart
> However, if you write a novel set in an alteration of the real 
world, then the reasons for the differences should be explained, or 
given as a mystery. Doing neither is just bad writing. 
> 
> Human abilities don't just suddenly appear. We start out with 
basic reflexes. Neurological feedback loops form, allowing us to 
develop skills from the reflexes, then skills from the skills. Block 
those intermediate skills from forming, and the person will have a 
lot more trouble forming the secondary skills (it is no coicidence 
that cultures in which infants are not able to crawl on the ground 
tend not to develop written languages). 

Magpie:
But Rowling's kids seem to share the same neurological feedback 
loops. Magical kids grow up knowing that one day they will learn 
magic; Muggleborn kids don't. But neither kid does any magic until 
they reach the age when their magic appears. The first flexing of 
the muscles comes out automatically and doesn't even necessarily 
require instruction. That's when the neurological loops form. There 
may be certain things that Magical children did earlier, but there 
does not seem to be a crawling stage when it comes to spellwork. 

Bart: 
> And let's not forget the other direction. Somehow, muggleborn are 
every bit as good as WW-born kids. But what about squibs? Do squibs 
fit easily into the muggle world? If not (and the implication is 
that they do not), then this is showing another form of 
discrimination; that, somehow muggles are superior to the people in 
the WW; certainly more intelligent and adaptable. 

Magpie:
Muggle-born Wizards are taken into instruction when their magic is 
ready to be exercised while Squibs seem stuck in the WW--though we 
do have at least one example of one who seems to do fine as a Muggle 
regardless. I imagine if Squibs had the same situation they might 
very well be equal to Muggles, perhaps like a person raised in just 
a rather old-fashioned environment for the first 11 years of their 
life, since they wouldn't have been doing magic regardless. 

Bart:
> 
> My main point is that, in trying to inject analogies of real-world 
bigotry into her novels, JKR's own prejudice is showing.

Magpie:
I'm fine with that idea. My main point is just that in the scene 
with Slughorn, Slughorn who's being prejudiced by the rules of canon-
-and I think by real world views as well, since as you say, even if 
statistically Muggle-borns were less likely to excel, that doesn't 
mean an individual who excels should not be Muggle-born. It seems 
like you're just saying that it's unrealistic for Muggle-borns to 
not really be statistically inferior Wizards. It doesn't seem like 
you had an issue to Harry's reaction to his conversation with 
Slughorn.

-m