Muggles v wizards redux

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183239

> > Alla:
> > Just adding something. Just as I cannot sympathize much with 
> muggles 
> > because they cannot do magic, I really am not identifying with 
> wizards 
> > because they CAN do magic, if that makes sense?
> 
> a_svirn:
> Sure it does, but it seems to me that it is a completely different 
> issue. You are basically saying that muggles are just too 
> insignificant for the story to be bothered with. They are of course, 
> but they are there nevertheless, the ever-present foil to the 
> Wizarding world, and Rowling is *very* persistent in bringing them 
> up. I mean, OK for the Dursleys, but why on earth do we need the 
> entire chapter about the Muggle minister? Does it add anything 
> significant to the plot? Nope. If Rowling wanted us to understand 
> that the Muggle world is likewise affected by Voldemort she could 
> have Kingsley to say something relevant at the Order meeting.

Montavilla47:
In fact, she does something very much like that in DH.  On the
radio show, Kingsley (or is it Jordan?) mentions specific wizards
who have been killed or captured, and then mentions some 
unnamed "family of Muggles" that was killed.  That the muggles
aren't even named (as opposed to Dirk Cresswell and Ted Tonks,
who made appearances in the story, does nothing to increase
any muggle-sympathy.  

And, as I recall, I wondered why that wizards even bothered
mentioning the dead muggles, if they didn't have names.  
Unless JKR was doing a version of that old Fireside Theater
Joke of the newspaper headline.  (IIRC, it read something
like "2 Iowans die in Earthquake! Thousands of Japanese 
also perish.")