History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWizardingPrejudice

10th Nov '16 4:30:56 AM phoenixrider
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Dress it up as some kind of literary criticism all you want, in the end these are just complaints that characters you like died. Hedwig'a death had the practical reason that it uped the emotional stakes and fear immediately, it removed the ability for Harry to communicate with the Order later in the book and was a symbolic death of Harry's youthful, schooltime adventures. Now it's not an adventure. It's a war. And people die in wars. Dobby's death completes his character arc of going from a bumbling wannabe hero who did more harm then good to a true hero willing to stand up the the very family he was terrified to defy, giving his life for a friend. And his death meant Harry's mistake and the detour to Malfoy manor had consequences. Otherwise it would have been a bit too convenient that they got out of it intact and with new allies and information, even after Herminoe's torture. Fred'a death came out of nowhere but that's kind of the point in a battle. And a ShooOutTheClown monument. Remus and Tonks dying came out of nowhere but I do like all the Marudures are dead at the series end, demonstrating both Harry'a isolation at the loss of another father figure and the end of the war that generation has been fighting for so long. The full circle of yet another orphaned child is definitely a GutPunch for Harry. Besides that sorry was finished when Remus accepted his role as a father and husband. That he and his wife died is not breaking their character development. It's a classic trajic turn because the character development was just completed. You may not like it, and that's fine. But just have the courage to admit it without attacking the author. If she is so bad, why the hell do you care so much to read it and post about it?

to:

** Dress it up as some kind of literary criticism all you want, in the end these are just complaints that characters you like died. Hedwig'a death had the practical reason that it uped the emotional stakes and fear immediately, it removed the ability for Harry to communicate with the Order later in the book and was a symbolic death of Harry's youthful, schooltime adventures. Now it's not an adventure. It's a war. And people die in wars. Dobby's death completes his character arc of going from a bumbling wannabe hero who did more harm then good to a true hero willing to stand up the the very family he was terrified to defy, giving his life for a friend. And his death meant Harry's mistake and the detour to Malfoy manor had consequences. Otherwise it would have been a bit too convenient that they got out of it intact and with new allies and information, even after Herminoe's Hermione's torture. Fred'a Fred's death came out of nowhere but that's kind of the point in a battle. And a ShooOutTheClown monument. The other 50 people . . . I'm sorry is Harry suppose to know everyone? That's a pretty petty criticism. They were people he didn't know but Harry still cared. The reader's not going to till it's someone they know. Otherwise it's just nameless faceless fictional people. But they needed to die because it built on Harry's guilt and because PEOPLE DIE IN A BATTLE. Remus and Tonks dying came out of nowhere but I do like all the Marudures are dead at the series end, demonstrating both Harry'a isolation at the loss of another father figure and the subsequent end of the war that generation has been fighting for so long. The full circle of yet another orphaned child is definitely a GutPunch for Harry. Besides that sorry the story was finished when with Remus when he accepted his role as a father and husband. That he and his wife died is not breaking their character development. It's a classic trajic tragic turn because the character development was just completed.completed only to be snatched away. You may not like it, and that's fine. Say it might have been better if Hargid died instead like she originally planed. Say you just don't like so many characters dying (though personally for a series with so many this is a pretty low number) But just have the courage to admit it say your views without shamelessly attacking the author. If she is so bad, why the hell do you care so much to read it the entire series and post about it?
10th Nov '16 4:21:54 AM phoenixrider
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Dress it up as some kind of literary criticism all you want, in the end these are just complaints that characters you like died. Hedwig'a death had the practical reason that it uped the emotional stakes and fear immediately, it removed the ability for Harry to communicate with the Order later in the book and was a symbolic death of Harry's youthful, schooltime adventures. Now it's not an adventure. It's a war. And people die in wars. Dobby's death completes his character arc of going from a bumbling wannabe hero who did more harm then good to a true hero willing to stand up the the very family he was terrified to defy, giving his life for a friend. And his death meant Harry's mistake and the detour to Malfoy manor had consequences. Otherwise it would have been a bit too convenient that they got out of it intact and with new allies and information, even after Herminoe's torture. Fred'a death came out of nowhere but that's kind of the point in a battle. And a ShooOutTheClown monument. Remus and Tonks dying came out of nowhere but I do like all the Marudures are dead at the series end, demonstrating both Harry'a isolation at the loss of another father figure and the end of the war that generation has been fighting for so long. The full circle of yet another orphaned child is definitely a GutPunch for Harry. Besides that sorry was finished when Remus accepted his role as a father and husband. That he and his wife died is not breaking their character development. It's a classic trajic turn because the character development was just completed. You may not like it, and that's fine. But just have the courage to admit it without attacking the author. If she is so bad, why the hell do you care so much to read it and post about it?
25th Oct '16 7:55:09 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Actually it is bad writing because it uses death as shock value to try and seem mature, people know that many die in war but killing off half the cast after they have used up their character arcs is a terrible way to use them, death in fiction has to affect the still living characters to have impact, Tolkien was much better at writing about the horror and the glory of war and he only killed off one of his main characters but JK seems to think that throwing death after death will have the same emotional impact as when she first killed off a beloved character. It's not that we cant FATHOM it it with our small mortal brains, its that she really didnt handle it well but fans tend to ignore that her books are far, far from perfect.

to:

*** Actually it is bad writing because it uses death as shock value to try and seem mature, people know that many die in war but killing off half the cast after they have used up their character arcs is a terrible way to use them, death in fiction has to affect the still living characters to have impact, Tolkien was much better at writing about the horror and the glory of war and he only killed off one of his main characters but JK seems to think that throwing death after death will have the same emotional impact as when she first killed off a beloved character. It's not that we cant FATHOM it it with our small mortal brains, its that she really didnt didn't handle it well but fans tend to ignore that her books are far, far from perfect.



*** The fact that people express their frustration and anger over the dead of beloved characters is probably exactly what the writer intended. GeorgeRRMartin often face the same kind of backlash and I guess is the fictional equivalent of been angry at God after one of your love ones die. But truth is, thatís what makes fiction interesting, real fiction, not Twilight-like HappilyEverAfter endings design for dumb people that can stand a sad ending.

to:

*** The fact that people express their frustration and anger over the dead of beloved characters is probably exactly what the writer intended. GeorgeRRMartin Creator/GeorgeRRMartin often face the same kind of backlash and I guess is the fictional equivalent of been angry at God after one of your love ones die. But truth is, thatís what makes fiction interesting, real fiction, not Twilight-like HappilyEverAfter endings design for dumb people that can stand a sad ending.
2nd Oct '16 1:38:22 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***The fact that people express their frustration and anger over the dead of beloved characters is probably exactly what the writer intended. GeorgeRRMartin often face the same kind of backlash and I guess is the fictional equivalent of been angry at God after one of your love ones die. But truth is, thatís what makes fiction interesting, real fiction, not Twilight-like HappilyEverAfter endings design for dumb people that can stand a sad ending.
5th Jul '16 6:20:34 PM inspibrain101
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Basically, there are two major story arcs that run throughout the series: there's the obvious one, the physical conflict between Harry and Voldemort, which intensifies as they learn more about each other, as Voldemort gains power, as Harry discovers how to defeat him, etc. culminating in an epic climax, and resolved with Voldemort's final defeat. Beyond that, there is the more philosophical conflict of the problems that plague the wizarding world, i.e. all the things mentioned by the O.P. This conflict receives almost as much attention as does the conflict with Voldemort, as the reader comes to understand how deeply these beliefs are entrenched in wizards, the consequences of their corrupt government and media, etc. The problem is, while the conflict with Voldemort has a satisfactory resolution, the moral arc does not, (or any resolution at all, really). This is particularly frustrating for many readers, as the moral arc had just as much significance (if not more) to them than did the physical conflict between Harry and the Dark Lord.
4th Jul '16 11:40:47 PM inspibrain101
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Continuing on the 1930's Germany analogy, the Nazis were able to take power in the first place for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was their rampant anti-Semitic propaganda campaign following their defeat in WWI; essentially, the majority of citizens were convinced of the inferiority of the targeted groups, and so the Nazis gained power (allowing them to spread their propaganda even more, including to the school system). At that point, anybody who had something to say against the Nazis and their anti-Semitism would have been forced into silence.
21st Apr '16 2:05:52 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

******* There is a part in Order of Phoenix were they mention that the Minister of Magic is elected.
8th Aug '14 5:25:42 PM cliffc999
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** Ultimately he is, given that Fudge resigned when he lost the confidence of the Wizengamot. This is not exactly reassuring, though, because as pointed out above the Wizengamot itself seems to be an entirely undemocratic and corrupt oligarchy.
1st May '14 12:08:40 PM cliffc999
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** Fudge has the power to order media censorship of even the most blatant kind (Daily Prophet, no comment necessary), order peoples' arrest and imprisonment without trial or even a simple habeas corpus hearing (Hagrid), to make law without the consent of the people or their elected representatives (the Educational Decrees), to order private institutions (Hogwarts is ultimately administered by a Board of Governors, not the Ministry department of education, so it is not state-owned) to employ and to fire people as he directs against their own wishes and business interests (Umbridge in book 5), and to ''order summary executions'' (Sirius Black and Barty Crouch Jr., the latter of which was actually carried out directly in front of an unresisting Chief Warlock!). Which one of these things '''is''' remotely consistent with democracy? Fudge is a dictator -- a dictator who ultimately had to answer to an entrenched oligarchy, when his job performance became sub-optimal -- but still a dictator.
21st Mar '14 11:38:18 AM sandalaris
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** They were never really off it. Look over the whole series and you'll see even wizards on the "good" side still had some prejudice against muggles, and by association muggleborns. Even Arthur Weasley shows some views on thinking muggles are less than wizards, albet in a "aww, aren't they cute with their little muggle toys?" sort of way, and he was known to be an active muggle and muggleborn rights supporter. In fact, the Weasley's themselves were looked down upon by more than just the pureblood supremist for their acceptance of muggles/muggleborns. It's stated more than once that Arthur's job is low paying and considered unimportant by most ministry officials . So it's less of jumping on the "hate the muggleborn" bandwagon and more nurturing an already there prejudice until it goes from being mild to major.
This list shows the last 10 events of 48. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWizardingPrejudice