Muggles v wizards redux

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 183245

> a_svirn:
> In one respect you are. Like the Dursleys you can't do magic. And 
that
> is what makes the Dursleys muggles. It seems to me that you somehow
> combine two different issues here. I do not identify with the
> Dursleys, who are so thoroughly unpleasant. I do, however identify
> with muggles who are non-magical. On the other hand, I do not
> identify with wizards who unlike me *can* do magic, but I can't help
> identifying with certain witches and wizards whose characters in 
some
> respects at least resemble mine.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Right, and just like Dursleys I have two legs, two hands and one 
> head. Because this is how it looks to me, you know? 

a_svirn:
Exactly. And that is why you (I presume) identify with humans, rather 
than with elves, even if you do like Dobby. 

> Alla:
> Let me try to rephrase and tell me if I understand correctly what 
you 
> are saying. Basically for you the fact that characters (Muggles) 
> cannot do magic is enough to identify with them, even if you do not 
> see any pleasant Muggles in the book. I mean, again I know we had 
> minor characters but I am excluding them because I know nothing 
about 
> them one way or another. I do not think I even know how nice 
> Hermione's parents are.
> 
> See I cannot feel that way when I am reading the book, any book. 
> There is absolutely no way I can identify with the group of people 
> whom I do not know much about, even if they look similar to us.

a_svirn:
Then you ask a wrong question. If you ask me "Do you *like* the 
muggles from the HP books?" I'll say "'Course not. There is not a 
single muggle in the books who is even remotely likable". But when 
you ask "Why do you *identify* with muggles?" I can only say, because 
in the Potterverse I'd be one of them. So would you. 

> Alla:
> It reminds me of Slytherin house discussions I had over the years. 
I 
> remember show people argued that just because the only Slytherin 
> student we learn about in more details is Draco Malfoy it does not 
> mean that there are no good kids in Slytherin somewhere, simply 
> because it does not work that way in real life. And of course it 
does 
> not work that way in real life, but I always thought that for me 
> Slytherin IS Draco Malfoy, simply  he is the only student about 
whom 
> JKR took care to talk more about. IMO of course.
> 
> And same thing is here. Just like Slytherin is Draco Malfoy for me, 
> Muggles are Dursleys and I just do not see how I can think that I 
> have anything in common with them because they can not do magic 
same 
> way as I do not think I have anything in common with Draco Malfoy 
> even if he can do magic.

a_svirn:
I don't think it is the same thing. The discussion about Slytherin 
House is revolving round the question what it means to be a 
Slytherin. Whether their badness inherent and constitutional or 
merely superficial? Is it a house like any other with only several 
baddies congregated there merely by accident of fate, or it is a bad 
house, rotten to the core? There is certain ambivalence about the 
issue, even Rowling herself seems to be in two minds about that – 
writes one thing in the book and then retracts it in the interview. 
However, there is nothing contradictory about being a muggle. A 
muggle is a non-magical person. You may not identify with them, but 
in the WW you would be identified as as such. And treated 
accordingly. 
a_svirn