This sums up something I’ve perceived about the books for years. It’s actually always bugged me, because I always felt like I was supposed Harry and his friends as outsiders when they clearly were not.

I wonder if that’s why so many people in online fandom gravitate towards Slytherin. As the House who gets almost nothing good said about them, they wind up coming off as the true misfits. Although they were always too mean in canon for my tastes.

Huh, I’d never really thought about it like that before, but I totally agree with your analysis. And it maybe explains why Snape is such a dark horse favorite among fanfic writers/fans (aside from the relative complexity of his character compared to that of the others); he’s the hero for the quiet disaffected geeks, not Harry.

I wonder if that’s why so many people in online fandom gravitate towards Slytherin. As the House who gets almost nothing good said about them, they wind up coming off as the true misfits.

Actually I’d say that this should actually be Hufflepuff. The nerds are in Ravenclaw, the misfits are in Hufflepuff (see: Luna Lovegood).

Excellent points.  I’d also posit this theory I have, which is called the “Summer Camp Theory”, because it was inspired by my former boss, who was in his 40s and completely obsessed with the summer camp he attended in his youth.  I finally figured out why it was so important to him; because summer camp was a liminal space where he, a dorky, fat kid, was actually popular and excelled in some ways.  I think that for some people who do fall into the geeky misfit category, Harry Potter may be appealing precisely because he’s the homecoming king quarterback hero in a totally different society and this allows said outcast reader to fantasize that if HE were at Hogwarts, maybe he too could be a star athlete, be popular and date the girl of his dreams.  This is also of course that JK Rowling is an excellent world-builder, so she can really suck you in, but I do think there’s something about Harry and friends as being popular and successful in an environment that is similar to real-world muggle middle/high school, but also different.

This is one of the things that I always liked about Potter. For a good 95% of the cast, Rowling seems to go “Here, have a stereotype. Now watch as that stereotype does NOT define that person.” Harry is totally a jock, and he probably would have been just as awful as James (and James 2.0, ugh), but all the trauma taught him empathy (thank god). Hermione isn’t just book-smart, she’s also people-smart, a trait storytellers rarely grant to true nerds.  Ron is…well, Ron. But everyone has a friend like that, and Neville and Luna and the collective Weasleys carry my point.

Also, Amanda, I think you’ll find this comic Ginger Haze posted the other night amusing! (http://gingerhaze.tumblr.com/post/7627006156/well-gracious-thats-a-personal-record)

Poor Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw.  So much interesting shit probably goes down there, but we the fans will never know about it.

To further “out” my fanficy ways (and cosign what luxaeturna said): a lot of times I’ve seen Harry/Draco pairs where Draco is much more sensitive and thoughtful and abused and sympathetic than Harry. Harry is often written as downright wife-beating, in fact, taking advantage of the popularity that Gryffindor enjoys to walk all over his not-actually-“evil” boyfriend. And I’ve seen a similar dynamic play out in other Gryffindor/Slytherin couples. Gritty fanfics can’t help but point out how powerful Harry & co. is and how easily they can get away with (literal) murder.

he’s the hero for the quiet disaffected geeks, not Harry.

By the end of the fourth book, I was far more invested in Snape’s story than in Harry’s. Because in a way, I felt like I already knew how Harry’s story would ultimately end up. Whereas Snape was a total mystery.

Amanda - this is why fanfic exists. And - to be honest - why I think JKR is so supportive of it. She built a world, and people are playing in it. Personally I *like* exploring the worlds of Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, among other things.

All that said, James Potter and his friends seem like they would be more fun to hang out with than Harry & Co.  It would be all beer drinking and casual vandalism.

I don’t disagree that Mark Zuckerberg would be in Slytherin, since his major character attribute is ambition, and it’s true that Harry and Ron are pretty much the jock kids.  But I’m not entirely sure that it doesn’t have the “band of misfits” aura to it:

In every book, for a good chunk of the book, the school hates Harry.  In the first book, he loses a bunch of points for Griffindors, and that causes the student body to lash out and ostracize him.  In the second book, they are convinced that he’s the “Heir of Slytherin” for most of the book.  The third gives him somewhat of a break from the whole “everyone in the school hates you” but he still gets taunted pretty bad for being afraid of dementors and he is physically separated from his classmates by not being able to go to Hogsmeade.  The fourth book 3 of the 4 houses it appears think he “stinks”, and make up badges to that effect and then mock him for various lies that show up in the paper.  He also shows major difficulty in finding someone to go the dance with and he ends up being the socially awkward wallflower.  The fifth book finds most of the school, particularly at the beginning, think he’s a giant liar.  The 6th is more of a bottle episode since it’s mostly backstory on Voldemort, and that’s where he gets to “enjoy” some of the bigger aspects of celebrity (like a stalking fangirl that gives him poison, in the form of a love potion).  The 7th, again, he is physically isolated from most of his peers, and even his most loyal friend abandons him.

Herminone is not considered pretty- she is considered someone who shines up nice but it is mentioned multiple times that she is plain.  She gets a little bit of the “Pretty in Pink” treatment when she briefly hooks up with Krum, but that doesn’t negate her nerdiness.  Honestly, the best piece of evidence that she’s a giant nerd is that she hangs out with Ron and Harry.  If she was popular, she wouldn’t bother, considering at their core they’re pretty toxic friends.

In the end, had it been a world without Voldemort and his destiny and crap, he would have been an obnoxious, overly-privileged twit with some minor magic talents a little talent at sports.  I always laugh when Dumbledore says he is “kind” in the 6th book, considering two chapters before that he fails to show the slightest bit of sympathy to Malfoy in his hour of need and nearly kills him (by accident, but still).  Basically, it took some unusual circumstances for him to open his eyes (and Herminone patiently explaining it to him with a clue-by-four).  I think think it has both options: people who weren’t misfits, and don’t really understand that identify with what the character could have been (the pretty normal, run of the mill teenager) and people who were outsiders identify with what he ended up having to be.

Yeah, I never said Harry isn’t given trials, but his character is basically on the jock side of the fence.  His being a misfit doesn’t fit him well; it’s like being a Muggle.  It just isn’t him. He’s a star, baby.

Also, I think people feel like Harry is a “misfit” because the other students often believe and say bad things about him. I’m pretty sure that happens to everyone in EVERY social set, particularly the popular folks, just no one really realizes it.  Cosplay community?  Everyone gets horrible comments on every costume page, but it’s the most popular people are most likely to have nasty false rumors spread about them.

Antigone: This is pretty much Hermione in a nutshell.

I think that’s a good point, verity.  It’s certainly complex.  Rowling does a good job of showing that being popular and a star has its downsides, which becomes more true as the books go on.  I suspect that has a lot to do with her own rise to fame and the realization that being a public figure made her an easy target for haterade.  And thus she puts that on Harry.

Also: Neville.  Bumbling, invisible kid who comes into his own. 

Harry’s father is more of a cocky son of a bitch who coasts on charm and privilege.

Agreed.  James Potter is a fucking piece of shit asshole.  Sorry, just taking a stand against the Supreme Evil doesn’t make you all that wonderful of a person. 

The one thing that bothers me the most about Harry Potter (aside from the pigeonholing of characters based on extremely superficial traits, ie. the Hogwarts house system) is that Rowling seems to be sending a typically nasty message with her treatment of, in particular, Snape.  He never really gets a break until the epilogue, and I got the message that it’s okay to bully the introverted, misfit, goth/emo kids if you’re charming, cool, and popular. 

Rowling puts down ‘meanness’ in a ton of the other characters (the Dursleys, pretty much all of Slytherin, adult Snape), especially when it’s aimed at one of the protagonists, but she doesn’t seem so quick to condemn asshole behavior among golden boys like James and Ron.  I don’t know if that’s intentional, but it came across as almost pro-bully to me.

Hobbes:  Having never played Legends of Zelda, I only have second-hand how annoying that character is, but I was under the impression that the sprite never actually told you any useful information. Hermonine, on the other hand, pretty much figures out everything (while it being pretty obvious that her character can occasionally grate on Harry and Ron’s nerves).

Yes, I’ll agree that the Harry Potter gang fall into “types.”  But it’s hard not to fall into some type or other when you’re in high school.  The unusual thing is for young people to get along with others who don’t belong to their own clique - for jocks to have nerd friends, and vice versa.  In this respect, Harry and his two friends really are a motley crew.  The fact that they all eventually become the most popular students at Hogwarts reflects the unifying forces of adversity, I think.  When you have to fight Voldemort, you set aside your differences, and you recognize the people with real talent, as opposed to mere pretensions.

I believe all three of the Harry-Potter trio: Harry, Ron, and Hermione, come across as somewhat nerdy to US-American readers, despite Harry’s athletic prowess above the quidditch field.  Firstly, quidditch doesn’t count as a sport, because it’s not a recognizably US-American sport.  Quite a lot of folks around here still don’t have much respect for soccer, for example.  It’s a foreign sport, and jocks in foreign sports don’t look like jocks to us.

Maybe I’m revealing my age, but when I was in high school (back in the early Eighties!), nerds (like soccer) weren’t popular yet, not even in a relative sense.  We nerds (yes, I was one) could create a kind of community only among our own kind, for example in the choir or the marching band.  With time and separation, I believe nerds and jocks at my high school learned to coexist without tormenting each other.  But the separation phase was necessary.

Two things make me hesitate to say that we US-Americans really understand J. K. Rowling’s cultural commentary as well as (or at least in the same way as) native Brits.

Firstly, I believe we US-Americans are somewhat more anti-intellectual than Europeans in general.  For example, there’s presently a minor scandal in Germany over politicians who lied about getting doctorates.  That would NEVER happen in these United States, not because our politicians don’t lie, but because our politicians would rather not be identified as having gotten “above their raisin’” with too much “highfalutin’ book-learnin’.”  (I don’t believe “highfalutin” is a British word.)  A few politicians might own up to having an M.B.A., but they’d keep a Ph.D. as quiet as possible.  The fact that Harry Potter’s great mentor, Dumbledore, is actually a school headmaster, pretty much stamps Rowling’s series as “nerdy.”  Or can you think of a US-American novel in which a school principal has such a heroic role?

Secondly, there’s the whole class snobbery thing, which is really foreign to us.  Not that we don’t have class differences here, but they’re INCOME classes, not cultural classes.  Our rich people are eager to show us that they’re aw-shucks down-home folks just like their ancestors, rather than inheritors of fortune and privilege that really have removed them a long distance from their roots.  But in Britain, particularly, class culture seems to be “not dead yet!”  It even shows in the way people talk, for those with a discerning ear.

One very clever thing about J. K. Rowling is her invention of names.  “Draco Malfoy,” to name one of many examples, pretty much says what it means.  He’s a blue blood, which you know by his French-sounding name - a descendent of Norman conquerors - and “Malfoy” pretty much evokes a “wrong-doer” as much as an aristocrat.  Bellatrix Lestrange has a similarly French-flavored name, for a similar reason.

Here is some overlap between our culture and the British: the association of the French language with upper-class pretensions.  But unlike the Brits, we US-Americans don’t merely see snobbery in French-sounding names with “de” before them.  No, we US-Americans believe that contemporary French people generally are snobs - and we could not be more wrong.  In my estimation, no people is LESS aristocratic than the French, or should seem less snobby, particularly from our perspective.  After all, the French government has a structure that, except for the judicial system, is more like ours than most other governments in the world.  And the French gave us the Statue of freakin’ Liberty as a PRESENT.  And let’s not forget that the French Revolutionaries slaughtered tens of thousands of aristocrats, more than any other European country I know, with the possible exception of Russia, so that in a purely genetic sense, I don’t believe there are many countries with LESS blue blood left than France.

How could we possibly believe that the French are hyper-aristocratic snobs?  It is because they’re too proud of their culture and food?  Is it because they insist that foreign visitors speak THEIR language?  Is it because their politicians regularly insist that their country is the greatest country in the whole world?  No, wait a minute - those would be OUR politicians, wouldn’t they?

I so rarely post in comment threads (since I have this neurotic fear that everyone else who posts knows each other and I’ll be quickly exposed as an unwelcome outsider), but it’s articles like this that make Pandagon my favorite blog.  This is such an interesting and unexpected way to look at something we’re all talking about.

How could we possibly believe that the French are hyper-aristocratic snobs?

It is because they laugh like “hon hon hon” and drink wine. Obvs. :D (And because I get the impression that wealthy/classy early Americans had kind of a huge hard-on for French culture? But I am not a historian. And as a biologist your point about genetic blue blood cracked me the hell up!)

Tabbycat: I think Rowling feels the same overfondness for James that she does for Severus. They are both incredibly shitty men, but she loves them so she gives them a pass. (She just did a better job humanizing Severus there at the end when we were all bawling our faces off.)  I think most of us have a friend—or at least a fictional character!—that we feel the same way about.  ^_^

Slate made a similar point back in 2002 in “Harry Potter: Pampered jock, patsy, fraud.”

The fact that they all eventually become the most popular students at Hogwarts reflects the unifying forces of adversity, I think.  When you have to fight Voldemort, you set aside your differences, and you recognize the people with real talent, as opposed to mere pretensions.

I dunno about this. For one, Harry Potter was already super popular from day one (even Malfoy wanted a piece of that initially!) and his character growth was largely about living up to his fantastic reputation. Sure he got gossiped about but he also had incredibly powerful people shamelessly pulling strings for him all over the damn place so he was never all that much of an underdog, at least among the adult population. The real underdogs were people like Luna and Neville, who got shat upon with some frequency by students and adults alike despite being wonderful people and fairly instrumental in saving the world.

And the HP main character trio was also together from day one, which makes me skeptical about them being brought together through adversity because they were (more or less) together the entire time even though, again, there was occasional bitching and moaning and silent treatment and eating of each other’s pets and stuff. (Also… Ron actually has no talents. At all. Except chess, which got a shout out once and did jack later on. ) Again, the people who were brought together were Neville and the rest of the students, who somehow staged a unified badass rebellion while Harry was playing hide-and-go-die with Voldemort.

(Hi megbon! I don’t know if this was intentional, but your name makes me think of Cinnabon, so I already kind of love you. ^^)

Just as a brief note, I found today that Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have an estimated worth of $46 million (NZ dollars); Daniel Radcliffe $93 million, and JK Rowling $1.2 billion, due to the films and books.

All Dobby ever got, however, was a lousy spare set of clothes.

All Dobby ever got, however, was a lousy spare set of clothes.

And killed. :D

I would say that the reason that people think of Harry Potter as ‘nerdy’ is because they’re viewing him from this side of the divide between muggles and wizard. Here in the real world, Harry IS an outcast nerd. He has no friends, he just doesn’t fit in, and he’s obsessed with weird interests.  He is, in short, the kid who spends his time memorizing the D&D handbook. Its just that he can then pop over to the wizard world where it turns out that the D&D handbook is actually pretty darn useful and makes him a hero. People feel like Harry is a nerd because they feel a nerd-connection to him when he’s stuck in the muggle world. The fact that he turns into a super-star celebrity and athlete just kind of makes him a ‘successful’ nerd.

The thing that I have to disagree with you on, though, is your characterization of Ron as a “stereotypical privileged young men” who can “coast into adulthood on their families’ reputation.”  Ron’s family’s reputation, so much as it has one, is a bunch of poor nobodies who had way too many kids.  Ron is someone coasting by with a C, no doubt about that, but I think its more because he doesn’t really foresee any chance of meaningful success. At best, he’ll get a job in lower management like his dad.  There’s no point in reaching for the stars if you’re not going to get there anyway.

Also, I don’t think Hermione is supposed to be beautiful. At best, she’s average looking. I think you’re just thinking that she’s beautiful because of the movies, but that’s more because its a US-made movie, and we don’t allow women who are less than a 9 on-screen…

@Drocket To be fair, Emma Watson was hired as a child. They did not know the levels of attractiveness she’d grow into.

In America, Harry Potter is a nerd because he wears glasses, period. If these people were in America, Hermione would be wearing glasses and have a stunning case of braceface—basically be Moaning Myrtle. I am actually amazed that a nerd character doesn’t have them there.

I concur that Harry is a jock, though he does have a fair number of “outcast” moments due to everybody hating him. His celebrity really doesn’t pay off for him as much as you’d think in that way. And every summer he is the Dursley family buttmonkey. Maybe that’s why I don’t find him as insufferable as say, James. He does have some hard shit happen to him, jock or no.

I actually do not get the Snape love. I don’t care about Snape’s ugly misunderstood teen years, I look at him as an adult and think, “Almost all of the time he’s a total jerk.” (And I’m no Lily, but those creepy little boys didn’t turn out to be great folks once they got out of high school. Mostly they followed me around and I felt stalked, not friendly.) I don’t really approve of a teacher who abuses the students (okay, he’s not Umbridge, but he’s not great in that department), who are caged animals who can’t escape if he wants to act like a dick either.

As for the Slytherins, no matter what JKR says about them, they’re all written as pure evil. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that. I never got why my perfectly nice (albeit Scorpio, which might have had something to do with it) friends would want to brag that they were Slytherins. Sheesh.

My generation (I’m 26) doesn’t have such a strong jock/nerd dichotomy anymore. Older people might find it weird in shows like Glee or Friday Night Lights where the football players join the glee club (or dance on the field to intimidate their opponents), or where the nerdy kids like Landry (or even Saracen) join the football team, but this was normal even 10 years ago when I was in high school. So I agree with Chareth that Harry Potter is basically a metaphor for nerd subcultures. Basically, geek tech is magic.

My point is that Harry might be popular and a callous, self-absorbed dick, but he’s still a nerd. Obviously, there’s some dispute whether geeks and nerds are different things. The former supposedly indicates tech skills or advanced, but narrow knowledge, while the latter is about not being able to get laid, but I kind of think those definitions are obsolete at this point. The fact is, both the Winklevoss Twins and Zuckerberg would be in Slytherin, because Slytherin accommodates socially, politically, and financially entrenched “legacy students” like the Malfoys/Winklevosses, and socially isolated sociopaths like Voldemort/Zuckerberg. This might be hard for older generations to wrap their heads around, but there are fratty, right-wing, popped-collar types who’ve been programming since they were 10 and look forward to careers at Microsoft, and there are full-blown “nerd” frat houses with all the frat baggage like hazing, dues, corruption, abuse of power, and conservatism. One group might have sex with cheerleaders and watch football players (or vice versa), while the other plays WoW and has vampire sex, but they are two sides of the exact same coin. Both groups are using either their geek skills or geek cultural capital to manipulate and control others.

To use a recent example, Harry Potter is not like Professor X in the recent X-Men movie, and Voldemort is not like Magneto. I will say that even if Harry was like Professor X, he’d still be a nerd, because Professor X is still a mutant despite being incredibly privileged and having a power that makes it easy for him to pass as a non-mutant. But Harry isn’t like Professor X, because Harry actually spent most of his childhood feeling like a misfit in a most likely abusive family. He didn’t have any friends, because he didn’t know anyone like him. Just because he eventually rose to popularity amongst a bunch of geeks/nerds, plays sports, and eventually gets laid doesn’t mean that Harry is no longer a nerd. It just means he’s fulfilled nerd fantasies.

This has been a common theme since at least 1990. Even as far back as Saved by the Bell, the nerd, Screech, is friends with the popular kids even if they look down on him. By the time Daria and Freaks and Geeks rolled around, it was common to see shows that highlighted how popular kids and nerds shared the same set of problems, not to mention weird fixations on obscure subjects. Basically, this comment is getting too long already, but at some point in time, geek pride turned into geek chic, and geekdom became a sexy subculture. The idea of the nerd as a fixed and unchanging social stigma has been lost ever since it became general knowledge amongst teenagers that exclusions and social hierarchies exist in all subcultures. There are no generally popular kids anymore, just popular kids within one’s narrow social circles. Adolescents no longer have a single popularity hierarchy to try and struggle up/hold in place, instead there are various popularity hierarchies that intersect. Jocks and nerds fight, but so do the theater kids, punks, crusty kids, candy kids, stoners, straight edge kids, over-achievers, and under-achievers. None of these groups is ever accepted by any of the other kids as more popular than their own group. So there are kids that are still labeled “losers” (and that’s still a huge problem), but those kids aren’t viewed as a cohesive and homogenous social group anymore, just like the more popular kids.

@10 Amanda, I’ve always preferred the world of James, Sirius, et al. For me the series peaked at Book 3 and never really recovered. In some sense the whole series is about how to live up to the expectations set up by the past. 

Harry lives out the “revenge of the misfit” fantasy in Book 1 and at the beginning of the books after that when he breaks out of the Dursleys’ world (where he is nobody special, clumsy, abused, etc.) to a world where he has special powers and is treated like royalty. That’s a really common childhood fantasy, that your parents/guardians have it all wrong, that someday your real parents will reveal themselves and sweep you off to a world where you’ll be treated right for a change. Once Harry gets to the world of Hogwarts he’s pretty much a star who gets outrageous latitude to break the rules because he’s on a secret mission to save the world. Straight-up wish fulfillment, really. 

I think part of the confusion is that the Harry Potter series draws upon a classic British genre (the “school novel”) that simply never became popular in the US. School novels have a series of tropes that are completely unfamiliar—-the “nerd” vs. “jock” trope simply doesn’t apply in them in the way we’re used to in the US. Instead, you have a totally separate series of stock characters:  The swot (Hermione), the bully from a posh family (Malfoy), the picked-upon nebbishy character (Neville) and so on. The hero in a school novel is generally both athletic and reasonably competent (but not the best or the worst) at their studies—-there isn’t the same sense of a sliding scale from geek to jock that you get in US fiction.

In the US, these tropes aren’t what people expect, so we try to shove them into US high school fiction tropes (jock, nerd, band of misfits, etc), and get imperfect matches.

Ron’s family’s reputation, so much as it has one, is a bunch of poor nobodies who had way too many kids.

No - that’s the total opposite of Ron’s family reputation. This is where Jakobfabian01’s point about class comes in. The books are very, very class conscious, and it is possible to place an awful lot of the characters very precisely. The Grangers are Guardian readers, sent CND Christmas cards, and boycotted South African oranges. The Weasleys are absolutely impoverished gentry who are held in contempt not because they are nobodies, but because they are ‘one of us’ and they are letting the side down. Look at the children’s professions - banker, something worthy with animals, Whitehall civil servant, and a horror of Fred and George going into trade. Lucius Malfoy despises Arthur precisely because Arthur is his social equal.

(I love the Norman French names. We really shouldn’t have been surprised that Peter Pettigrew turned out to be the evil one in Prisoner of Azkaban. It’s like that line in “The Last English King” when the author lists a bunch of invading Normans and they all have the names of Thatcher’s cabinet).

I think the most interesting part of JKR’s characterizations is the extent to which she exposes their flaws, because that’s what makes the coming-of-age story compelling.  Most of her bad guys are pretty dull, really (except Umbridge, but the exercise of power’s what’s really distressing in her case), but pretty much everyone else from house-elves to Dumbledore have secrets and idiosyncrasies and critical-point failures… denial, vanity, control issues, laziness, complacency, etc.  She seems to focus more on strength of character than personal charm; Snape, of course was a genuinely unpleasant and unjust man, but still a hero at the end, and he turned out to be of more value in the wizarding war than all of the hotshot marauders put together. 

Harry is a jock, of course, but I think she has Dumbledore point out several times that growing up with the Dursleys did a lot for his character, even though the abuse was a bad thing.  I guess the tension between the two worlds, along with his constantly-fluctuating status, are supposed to make him an everyman-type character, or at least a screen on which all types of readers can project their own issues.  It’s not like he always handles it gracefully—for a couple of books it was easy to pick out Harry’s dialogue because it was in all-caps.  In any case, I wouldn’t say that the individual characters were fully realized, but JKR did a nice job of creating a social and personal world along with the [meta-] physical one.

For me the series peaked at Book 3 and never really recovered.

WORD. I felt like the first three books had a pretty interesting and coherent character/plot arc all by themselves, to be honest, and then the last four books were just everyone whining more and life getting shittier—which is realistic I guess, but made for dull writing in my opinion. It’s like, alright, growing up sucks… still sucks… still sucks… jeezus I get the point, Harry!

I’m not convinced that books 4-6 couldn’t have been one book, just to concisely advance the plot a bit and flesh out the misery of wizardly fascism nicely, and then the series could be finished with a pared-down book 7—where I’ll admit there were some fun new twists and character facets exposed, epilogue VERY much excepted, and which was necessary to wrap everything up. I didn’t really need that lengthy character development plateau, personally, just to have the years line up correctly; skip to the crucial parts please! :p

But I may be biased in that I can barely remember anything that happened between the end of book 3 (in which the good guys turn out to not be all that great, plots are afoot, and there is baggage from the previous generation—sweet!) and the last half of the 7th book (in which people make some tough choices, some good people die and bad people don’t, and the baggage is resolved. The end!)

The Weasleys are absolutely impoverished gentry who are held in contempt not because they are nobodies, but because they are ‘one of us’ and they are letting the side down. Look at the children’s professions - banker, something worthy with animals, Whitehall civil servant, and a horror of Fred and George going into trade. Lucius Malfoy despises Arthur precisely because Arthur is his social equal.

I definitely get what you mean about how they’re gentry and how that’s the most offensive thing to Malfoy—pureblooded but not rich and snobby? OMG!—but I was thrown off of this by the constant references to how prolific and red-headed they are… That gave me a total Irish stereotype vibe which I assumed hinted at lower class (but I’m American so I have no idea if that’s a legit reading?)

@Nineveh

I definitely see where you’re coming from, and it is true.  I think my point still stands, though: its not that Ron was a slacker because he knows he’s got a great, high-ranking place in the world awaiting him.  His family may be pure-blooded wizards, but they’re still social outcasts. The cause of Ron’s slacker attitude is because he just doesn’t see himself moving up in the world no matter what he does.

And as long as we’re discussing HP, I feel the need to link this video:
http://youtu.be/y0Z5_wipT2o

Agreed.  James Potter is a fucking piece of shit asshole.

I think it’s more complex than that. I mean yes, he is, but that’s not all he is. His torment of Snape is shitty but there are levels on which Snape deserves it. Snape is a bigot who hates Muggles and Muggle borns, even as a teenager, and he calls his crush object Lilly, a “mudblood”, which is a truly awful slur in universe and James is righteously appalled by that, even as Lilly chews him out for his bullying, so I don’t think he’s completely irredeemable.

Sirius had a lot of that dickishness to him too, the only truly likable one from that clique was Remus, it’s perhaps telling, if you want to build a “Harry is a privileged jock” case, that he is so much more attached to Sirius than Remus.

One final point: Snape is more than a bit of a Nice Guy.

Actually I’d say that this should actually be Hufflepuff. The nerds are in Ravenclaw, the misfits are in Hufflepuff (see: Luna Lovegood).

Um, actually, Luna wasn’t in Hufflepuff.  Luna was in Ravenclaw.  Just saying.

Actually I take that back, he would be a Nice Guy if he hated Lilly for choosing James, which there’s no evidence he did. He did scorn her for being Muggle born however, even as she was defending him from James, princely behavior. Should really put my thoughts into one big post instead of multiple little ones.

“Harry isn’t a nerd,” I said, “Harry is a jock.”  I mean, Harry has an existential crisis that gives him some depth, but social outcast and/or geek he’s not.  The opposite, in fact.

QFT

I mean, in his “normal” life, he whines about homework because it might interfere with practice, and the thing he’s most engaged in at the school is a sport.

actually, the whole post is spot-on

The thing that I have to disagree with you on, though, is your characterization of Ron as a “stereotypical privileged young men” who can “coast into adulthood on their families’ reputation.”  Ron’s family’s reputation, so much as it has one, is a bunch of poor nobodies who had way too many kids.  Ron is someone coasting by with a C, no doubt about that, but I think its more because he doesn’t really foresee any chance of meaningful success. At best, he’ll get a job in lower management like his dad.  There’s no point in reaching for the stars if you’re not going to get there anyway.

that I have to agree with; Ron’s family rates somewhere on the bottom of the British-class system of this world; only muggles are lower.

Also, I don’t think Hermione is supposed to be beautiful. At best, she’s average looking.

theoretically possible, if you assume that in Rowling’s world, world-famous young sport stars are dating average looking girls. Either way, she’s successful and popular.

I’m glad, though you noted Snape’s nerdiness, you didn’t fall into the trap of venerating him and implying it excuses his abusive (and bigoted, earlier on at least) behaviour. Lard knows a lot of Snape fans do that, and it’s irritating.

Although he’s friends with the jocks, Neville is a good example of a nerd. In fact, the willingness of Harry and company to be friends with people like Neville and others is probably what confuses people, the fact that they will stick up for people against other jock groups (Slytherins). They’re jocks, but they aren’t stereotypical Jerk Jocks (most of the time. Harry has his jerkass moments, as does Ron), so it throws people off.

That gave me a total Irish stereotype vibe which I assumed hinted at lower class

in Britain, it’s sufficient that it’s Irish :-p

Agreed.  James Potter is a fucking piece of shit asshole.

I think it’s more complex than that. I mean yes, he is, but that’s not all he is. His torment of Snape is shitty but there are levels on which Snape deserves it. Snape is a bigot who hates Muggles and Muggle borns, even as a teenager, and he calls his crush object Lilly, a “mudblood”, which is a truly awful slur in universe and James is righteously appalled by that, even as Lilly chews him out for his bullying, so I don’t think he’s completely irredeemable.

Okay, a couple of things:  First of all the whole fighting between Snape and Potter started right off and never got better.  It happens, some people just don’t vibe.  Without my book in front of me I can’t rightly say where it started from but I’m pretty sure that James actually started the whole mess.  James and Sirius.  Does Snape get him back?  Of course.  Does James get Snape back, yup.  It’s all about defense and offense, Snape wanted to stay on top, and was often in situations where he didn’t.  As for Snape hating muggles, he seems to hate the *treatment* of muggles on magical society.  We definitely get the idea that his pure blood mother and muggle father don’t treat him very well.  So he see’s the pure blood society as being in the right, because if his mother had just stayed with them, he would probably not have been hurt so much, right?  It’s the thought pattern of youth.

I’m also going to address the comment about Snape calling Lily a mudblood.  First of all, how many times in your school was it alright for a boy to get “saved” by a girl?  As said boy, you’d get teased and teased for not being able to stand up for yourself.  Add into that how many times did you say the wrong thing?  Never?  Did you NEVER call someone you cared about something you didn’t really mean?  Severus was hanging around Slytherins who in general hated muggleborns and would call her and her “kind” bad names all the time.  He was trying to get her to let him defend himself, probably so he wouldn’t be embarrassed, even though he cared about her, and he slipped.  I might not have ever said a word like mudblood, but I’ve actually called my friends bad names before when I was angry.  When that happens, we would fight and sometimes make up.  Lily made her choice to not accept Snape’s apology, which took a lot of guts on her part, and although it makes me want to smack her, I understand and applaud her strength.

And James.  *sigh*  Where to start with him.  For one, it’s not good manners to call anyone a mudblood and if you want to date someone, you’ll stick up for them, whether or not you actually care about the words being used.  So he doesn’t get points in my book for that.  He also doesn’t get points for much because the *only* things we ever get to see him doing that’s good is joining the Order of the Phoenix, trying to protect his son, and sticking up for Lily (ulterior motives make this one not count in my book).  Okay, so… he’s a good friend, he takes care of those he loves.  Good for him.  Most of society is this way.  *clap, clap*  Is he good?  Is he bad?  Eeh, I don’t know enough to tell, oh wait, I see more of his bad sides in the books than his good sides so…

“But in Britain, particularly, class culture seems to be “not dead yet!”  It even shows in the way people talk, for those with a discerning ear.”

If you are British yourself, the ear needn’t be remotely discerning

Ugh, I should really read ALL the comments in their entirety before commenting on them, sorry.

“One very clever thing about J. K. Rowling is her invention of names.  “Draco Malfoy,” to name one of many examples, pretty much says what it means.  He’s a blue blood, which you know by his French-sounding name - a descendent of Norman conquerors - and “Malfoy” pretty much evokes a “wrong-doer” as much as an aristocrat.  Bellatrix Lestrange has a similarly French-flavored name, for a similar reason.”

Voldemort is probably the best and most clever example. Tom Riddle doesn’t sound remotely French, but Vol de Mort certainly does. He adopted a more French (and sinister) sounding name to fit in with the pure-blood crowd he was emulating and “protecting”, and his original name betrays his half-blood origins (in the way it sounds as much as the fact it was his muggle father’s).

“Also… Ron actually has no talents. At all. Except chess, which got a shout out once and did jack later on.”

Unintentional comedy genius? Wizarding World Petty Argument Champion?

“The fact is, both the Winklevoss Twins and Zuckerberg would be in Slytherin, because Slytherin accommodates socially, politically, and financially entrenched “legacy students” like the Malfoys/Winklevosses, and socially isolated sociopaths like Voldemort/Zuckerberg.”

You know, it did sort of bother me that almost every single person in Slytherin is a bastard or straight-up evil. But when you put it like that, it makes me think that “Slytherin” as an identity is a lot like “Conservative” (I mean, aside from the obvious similarities in ideology and the social status of members).

It’s highly likely that the people encompassed by it are assholes because of the ideological beliefs that are common among members. The only people who aren’t horrible in both groups are those who are making a misguided attempt to rehabilitate the term’s status despite disagreeing with the dominant members’ beliefs. Slytherins are tolerated by the wizarding world and not seen as uniformly evil for the same reasons that conservatives are: there are a wide range of beliefs among wizards that sometimes line up with those of these groups, and some sort of consensus that it is valuable in and of itself to have these people’s opinions influence society. Meanwhile, they are obviously evil from the perspective offered in the book because it’s a relatively liberal perspective, coming from JKR, who is left-wing, or Harry, who is basically an antifascist rebel hero. It all makes sense now.

By the way, my boyfriend has been raving about a fanfiction called “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality” lately, which explores how Harry might have been different (and how he would perceive and deconstruct the science behind magic) had he been raised by a muggle scientist. In it, he’s an amoral asshole, but it’s more complex than it sounds (not the “atheists are amoral without God’s guidance” trope played straight), as far as I can tell from what little I’ve read myself. It sounds like something HP fans who read Pandagon might like, so if you haven’t heard of it, here’s the link: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

““Band of misfits” is a trope that has great appeal to the traditionally geeky fantasy audiences, “

99% of the fantasy novels I read as a kid involved a person going from unknown to famous, this is really the default trope. 

Harry really is one of the nerdiest characters, at least to kids, since he does well in school and this is a traditionally nerdy accomplishment.  His sports success doesn’t prove he isn’t a nerd, since the sport rarely involves physical contact.  Furthermore, if Quidditch actually involved contact, he is way too small to really fight the big boys; the movies let him win physical engagements because he is the star, completely unrealistically…

Yeah, the Weasleys aren’t nobodies, but slightly tattered aristocracy. In American terms, the Malfoys are the Bushes, the Weasleys are the Kennedies, and the Potters are like the Roosevelts or something.

I don’t buy the “James is a piece of shit asshole” thing.  That’s how Snape sees him, but…. Snape is a Nice Guy.  He hangs around Lily, hoping to be rewarded with sex for his devotion.  Of course James hates him.  Who wouldn’t?  If someone kept hanging around my beloved, using subterfuge to steal that person from me, I wouldn’t be very nice about it, either.

Thank you, “Bagelsan,” “curiouscliche,” “Lleldorin,” and “Nineveh,” for your kindness and your insights.  Where I was wrong, you’re right!

I’m so happy to be forgiven for my long-winded post.  Here’s a shorter one, a nerdy parting shot.

Some more names by J. K. Rowling that I believe are inspired (especially the first names!):

Minerva McGonagall
Sibyll Trelawney
Dolores Umbridge
Remus Lupin
Albus Dumbledore
Sirius Black

Rowling is the greatest Master Namer since Kurremkarmerruk.

And “Treefinger”: Thanks for your comment, too.  My wife and I watch a lot of British TV by way of Netflix.  It’s amazing how many different English dialects there are on the island of Britain!

Harry Potter is a nerd because his earliest fans (children and adults who read about wizards and magic and stuff like that) were nerds. It doesn’t have to make sense. And it doesn’t.

See also: Obama, Barack. He’s the Kenyan Muslim Socialist Marxist Manchurian Candidate because the liberals liked him. Who needs facts? And why should a perfectly-working opinion be changed just because of facts?

I think that Harry Potter still has that feel-good hopeful trope, although not necessarily just for geeks.  He starts out with a horrible life.  His parents are dead, he lives with relatives who hate him, he sleeps in a closet, and he has a prominent scar on his face.  His life sucks with no sign of getting better.  But then one day he finds out that he’s a rich wizard.  It still has that message of “no matter how bad your life is, something good could happen to change all that”.  And I guess in a way it’s also a metaphor for puberty, because plenty of awkward, lanky, greasy, pimply 12 year-olds turn into good-looking 16 year-olds without any magic involved.

One thing that I really liked at first was how the bad guys didn’t necessarily look stereotypically evil.  Snape looked like the evil one but turned out the be good in the first few books (although he was actually secret evil).  And the Malfoys have blond hair rather than the stereotypical dark look.  I really gave Rowling a lot of credit for that UNTIL the Nazi symbolism became so obvious and central that I realized she was just making them look Aryan and wasn’t trying to be subversive or anything clever like that.

“By the way, my boyfriend has been raving about a fanfiction called “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality” lately, which explores how Harry might have been different (and how he would perceive and deconstruct the science behind magic) had he been raised by a muggle scientist.”

I found that HPatMoR started entertaining and wearied.  I had never before really considered what would happen if an author used TV Tropes subculture as a substitute for world-building; now I know.  “Look, I have all these characters with their plots-within-plots built up into what is so totally a Machiavelli fractal, and I am now making humorous allusions to GARGOYLES and DEATH NOTE!”  I still don’t know what Harry Potter would have been like if he had been raised by a muggle scientist.  All I’ve learned is what Harry Potter fanfic is like when it’s written by The Most Rational(TM) Man In Every Room I Walk Into.

I agree with Hobbes @ 3.
Harry is undeniably the kid who was goofy and an outcase in elem who suddenly is popular and/or well known due to sports and to things that have little to do with his own abilities.  The good thing about him is that he really does just want to be normal most of the time.
Harry’s most serious romatic relationship is with Ginny, not Cho, so, no not the homecoming queen/jock.
Hermoine serves as the minority tolken allowed in with the cool kids.

Helen, Ginny is the homecoming queen/jock I was thinking of.  She’s characterized as by far the most popular and beloved girl in the school, and boys are vying to date her.

Llelldoen @32:  Don’t most US high schools still make kids read “A Sperate Peace”?  Kind of our iconic school novel.

Re. the Irish Weasleys, I think this is much more of a US reading than a UK one. The proportion of the Irish population with red hair is about a couple of percent greater than that of Scotland, west Wales, or Devon (where the Weasleys come from), and red hair generally reads as more of a Scottish stereotype than an Irish one. As for the lots of kids - just look at the Mitfords.

Also, you can tell the stereotypically Irish character quite easily - he wears a hat with shamrocks on it and is called Seamus Finnegan

But really I’m with Llelldorin - Harry, Ron, and Hermione are all stereotypes, but they are school story genre stereotypes - David Blaize,  Bags, and Flashman (Draco) and so on - not jocks and nerds. Harry and Ron’s initial enmity followed by friendship with Hermione in Philosopher’s Stone is straight out of a girls’ boarding school book.

@Amanda: the Weasleys aren’t the Kennedeys; they’re a local family that seems to keep producing people that rise up to the top of the local stratum and occasionally spit one or two out into the wider world.  But they’re hobbled (and sustained) by the fact that most of them are honest and decent and end up both in fights with unprincipled people and widely supported by a social network of honest, decent people with some talent.

I enjoy the “Harry Potter: asshole jock” discussions, but fundamentally they aren’t useful.  Potter’s bravery in dealing with Umbridge doesn’t fit well in those discussions.  I guess the books really are pretty decent, if the characters fall so poorly into these roles.

This is why I’ve always been all about Luna and Neville.

I’ve met lots of punky people who go Slytherin, but Slytherins are the most conformist and authority-following group of the books, just in a negative way.  The Huffelpuffs get no attention, so I assume they’re all down in their basement listening to Phish and smoking pot.  But me?  I’d pick Ravenclaw, to get away from the sports-obsessed jocks in Gryffendor, if nothing else.

I tried going through HP and the Methods of Rationality and it pretty quickly seemed to develop into something with Harry going to conquer the world. I gave up pretty early as it seemed terrible.

Blake said it better than I did.

“Harry Potter: asshole jock”

He’s not an asshole jock, he’s just athletic and popular.  I think one of the nicer things about the books is that he weathers his popularity and its attendant backlashes, and still manages to be a really decent person.

Zuckerberg/Slytherin mashup: now that sounds like fun. I’d watch that. Someone make it happen.

What I always loved about the books is how Rowling used the excessive parallels between Harry and the other characters to setup various alternate narratives for Harry’s life. Neville is the obvious one but all the male leads have some level of overlap. If Harry had grown up and come to the wizarding world without being the boy who lived, he could easily had become another Snape, clawing at the walls of his station, abused, ignored, and full of rage. If he had not been raised by the Dursley’s and instead by his loving folks he probably would have been another James, a popular jock who while not evil at heart is still casually cruel because hes never had to try and find empathy with something or someone totally outside his tiny comfort zone. Granted that’s a lesson that Harry had to learn over and over but he was capable of that growth in a way James wasn’t largely because the people around him constantly challenged his prejudices. But maybe Lilly’s influence would have made Harry a little more compassionate, a little less of a prat. Then he could have been Cedric Diggory, popular star Quiddich player dating the girl of Harry’s dreams until he ends up dead without a fight because for all his magical skill he’d never been tested. In my opinion that scene leads exactly to why Harry didn’t end up like Sirius. Bad home life ran, envious of his best friends “perfect” family, rebellious, reckless, hot- tempered, prone to snap judgements but always ready to defend those he loves, no sense of caution or consequence…

So is Farmer Ted still a dweeb?

I always just wondered why Hermione wasn’t in Ravenclaw.

Also, yes, “nerd” and “jock” aren’t really British school stereotypes, so whilst I understand the US need to analysis a popular book within the context of your own culture, it is again worth pointing out that JKR wasn’t thinking in those terms.  They are, as someone else said, in some ways quite like various British boarding-school books (eg the Mallory Towers series by Enid Blyton).

I want a mashup between Harry Potter and the Wire. “Fuck Voldemort! He’s an asshole! He doesn’t get to win, WE get to win!”

I don’t buy the “James is a piece of shit asshole” thing.  That’s how Snape sees him, but…. Snape is a Nice Guy.  He hangs around Lily, hoping to be rewarded with sex for his devotion.  Of course James hates him.  Who wouldn’t?

Where’s the evidence that Snape sees sex with Lily as a reward for being her friend and isn’t just in love with her and too shy and self-loathing to ask her out? Snape is what real Nice Guys think they are. He doesn’t hate her for choosing James or try to make himself an asshole so she’ll like him. He truly is “socially awkward,” as they say. Literally the only time we ever see James is when he bullies and humiliates Snape for *existing*, not for liking or hanging around Lily.

I think that Harry Potter still has that feel-good hopeful trope

It started out that way and plunged headlong into the narcissistic wish-fulfillment trope. Potter is a jock when Rowling wants to make you feel like the big man on campus, and the put-upon outcast when Rowling wants to acknowledge how hard it is that people just don’t recognize how special you are. 99% of the Mary Sues on fanfiction.net can’t compete with this guy.

One source of enmity between James and Snape that hasn’t been mentioned yet is Snape’s taste for the Dark Arts.  I’m sure that his bigotry (don’t I remember him being a Death Eater fanboy?) and his Nice Guy behavior (which approaches stalking when he waits outside the door to Gryffindor tower all night) don’t help anything, but that’s the reason that the books actually mention.

Snape’s real-world equivalent isn’t some poor emo goth who gets picked on by the popular jock for no reason; he’s a racist (aspiring Nazi?) who behaves creepily towards girls and practices building pipe bombs.  JKR kinda messed up by not emphasizing that a bit more, because you get what you see here and in the fandom at large: people who see a nerd and a jock in a feud and assume that the nerd must be the good guy.

One source of enmity between James and Snape that hasn’t been mentioned yet is Snape’s taste for the Dark Arts.

Yeah, James always loathed and despised the “Dark Arts” when he wasn’t using them himself. Wait, I forgot, bringing a knife to school makes you a terrorist, but punching someone in the face is good clean healthy masculinity.

As I argued before, there’s a lot not to like about James but he’s not entirely awful. He and Snapes remind me of my dad and my uncle. My uncle was a bookish social outcast, never had a real girlfriend his entire life, and a college graduate. He was also a vicious racist, misogynist and homophobe. The “N” word was one of his favorites. He also read lots of books and was full of scholarly pretensions.

My dad was captain of the football team, a boxer, a ladies man and he never finished college. He has extremely progressive politics and totally disdained his younger brother’s bigotry.

@junk science:

It’s been a while - when did James use the Dark Arts (bearing in mind that neither all offensive magic nor all of Snape’s homebrewed spells were Dark Arts)?

And thank you for illustrating my point.

For the record, I’m not arguing that James was the good guy; I’m pointing out that the assumption that the nerd must be the good guy in any feud between a nerd and a jock is a seriously faulty one.

helen h.w. @59

A Separate Peace isn’t in the same genre, though. “School novels” are (or at least was—they were mostly popular before WWII) an enormous genre of books in Britain, not just a book about kids in an exclusive school. The tropes in them are nearly as ossified as the ones in, say, Regency romance novels—-a kid goes to a boarding school and deals with athletics, bullies, and so on, and is typically forced to break school rules for the sake of his schoolmates from time to time. The problem is that they aren’t the same tropes that we’re used to from high school fiction in the US—-there’s some overlap, but “bullies” and “jocks” don’t overlap the way they tend to in US fiction, for example.

Snape isn’t creepy he’s just socially awkward?

Where have we heard that argument before?  Sounds awfully familiar.

I would say the fact that Snape joins the Death Eaters and actively works toward goals of mass murder and world conquest and only switches sides when someone he personally cares about becomes a victim makes him just a *bit* of a worse person than James.

(bearing in mind that neither all offensive magic nor all of Snape’s homebrewed spells were Dark Arts)

The books are never clear about what counts as Dark Arts. Basically Dark Arts are whatever the designated bad guys do. Snape calls his own spells “dark magic” at one point.

And thank you for illustrating my point.

Not sure what it was, but no problem.

Snape isn’t creepy he’s just socially awkward?

He is creepy and socially awkward, but he doesn’t go around pontificating about how women are evil because they only like assholes. Doesn’t fit my definition of a Nice Guy.

To be clear, I don’t think for one second that Lily should have dated Snape, or anything. She clearly wasn’t attracted to him, and there’s nothing wrong with her dating whoever she liked. I also don’t see Snape at any point acting entitled to sex or romantic love from her.

Snape joins the Death Eaters and actively works toward goals of mass murder and world conquest

Fair enough. The way I see it, he’s a miserable sad sack who gets roped into a terrible situation, spends his life thanklessly working to bring down a mass murderer, and gets a death scene as pathetic and humiliating as his entire life. I don’t think he’s a great person, but I think he gets punished more than enough.

No question he redeems himself. He’s a complicated anti-hero and we love complicated anti-heroes.

By the way, my boyfriend has been raving about a fanfiction called “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality” lately

I really enjoyed that one when it started out, especially Harry’s experimental tests on time travel, but lately it’s been spinning a ridiculous number of plotlines in the air and not really going anywhere with any of them. It’s most fun when the author’s just playing around with science and philosophy rather than trying to spin out a story.

Snape is not a Nice Guy - the prereq. for being a Nice Guy is believing that you’re nice. Snape never thought of himself as nice. Nor do I think he was stalking Lily - they were friends once, but as they grew older he began associating with people that thought she should be killed. I’m not exactly suprised that she gave up on him.

The difference between Snape and Harry is that, while both were abused by Muggles and grew up as the target of bullies, Snape took that experience and became the abuser and the bully and Harry gained empathy and became a protector of those who were abused.

I see that Methods of Rationality has already got a couple of mentions.

Blake’s criticism has some merit, but I would still recommend it, though I don’t know that anyone should take it too seriously.

It’s not really so much “about” what happens if Harry Potter really is raised by a muggle scientist, it’s about what happens when you take a world like the one Rowling created - which is huge and colorful, and has a lot of interesting backstory and characters - and start dissecting all of the lazy plot devices and unquestioned assumption from the inside.

It’s for the people who read HP and had reactions like “What the hell? He just found out there’s magic in the world, and he’s a freaking wizard, why isn’t he spending every waking moment in the library studying and learning about this stuff?”; “Wait, why were wizards more powerful hundreds of years ago? Isn’t anyone looking into this? And where does magic come from anyway?”; “How is it in any way moral for a secret society of people with amazing magical powers to just hide themselves away and not aid or advance the rest of the world?”; or “Really? They lock people up in Azkaban and torture them for the rest of their lives?”

It’s a fun, peculiarly satisfying exercise to try to flesh those out, but these aren’t necessarily the kind of lines of thinking whose in depth investigation makes a great novel.  For one thing, using the character of “Rational Harry Potter” as a device means the character has to start turning the world’s foundational assumptions upside down and creating some chaos around him. MOTR frequently falls into the trap of letting this happen in an annoying Mary-Sue-ish, almost-but-not-quite breaking the fourth wall kind of way.

I could also probably do without some of the Machiavellian layers (though note that schemes and secrets are one of the primary hackneyed plot devices of the original HP universe, so this is in some ways a necessary part of the dissection), or things like the extended Ender’s game reference/plotline.

All in all, it could use a good editor and a half dozen revisions to tighten it up and smooth over the annoying bits. It’s still pretty great for what it is.

“How is it in any way moral for a secret society of people with amazing magical powers to just hide themselves away and not aid or advance the rest of the world?”

Not to mention why in fuck’s name you would become a receptionist or a government paper-pusher when you could shoot lasers out of sticks.

Wait, why were wizards more powerful hundreds of years ago? Isn’t anyone looking into this?

Hagrid answered this when when Draco first called Hermione a mudblood.  He said “There’s not a wizard alive today that’s more than half-blood” or something to that extent.  Presumably the gene (or whatever causes it) for magic has incomplete dominance and as wizards intermarried with non-wizards, the power got diluted.  You end up with some really powerful wizards, but on average they are less powerful than they used to be.

Having spent a short but pivotal moment of my adolescence in an English Public School (Hong Kong Island School!), I feel like the books do an amazing job of capturing the hyper-competitiveness and almost gleeful cruelty of English school systems that Americans, despite the jock-versus-nerd dichotomy, won’t understand.  There, the bullies tried to push ahead in academics as well as sports, using every kind of leverage in the classroom as well as in sports (er, sport) to make the geeks feel unworthy.  And they can do this because, like Snape, there are plenty of teachers who love to see the geeks and misfits get squished so that the bullies can excel—and they do so much more openly than teachers here.  Harry (unlike the “heroes” of his father’s generation) seems to hate this aspect of school so much that I just can’t find him to be in the “jock” camp, or whatever camp the nerds aren’t in in English schools.

You end up with some really powerful wizards, but on average they are less powerful than they used to be.

Mudbloods and halfbloods are never shown as less powerful than purebloods in the books. The opposite, in fact. Hermione is a mudblood and Tom Riddle is a halfblood. There’s no evidence that mixed ancestry results in dilution of power.

Hagrid answered this when when Draco first called Hermione a mudblood.  He said “There’s not a wizard alive today that’s more than half-blood” or something to that extent.  Presumably the gene (or whatever causes it) for magic has incomplete dominance and as wizards intermarried with non-wizards, the power got diluted.  You end up with some really powerful wizards, but on average they are less powerful than they used to be.

Well, not to sidetrack this or anything, but that explanation is still a bit weird. Which is why something like MOTR is so fun.

For one thing, the “blood” explanation doesn’t really even work within the canon HP universe - lower rank “pure blood” death eaters and Slytherins aren’t necessarily more powerful than “muggle borns” like Hermione - who presumably only have a few wizard genes in their distant ancestry. More importantly though, if this is the true explanation, it makes the Death Eaters right. Not their methods of course, but certainly they are right about the deleterious effects of wizards interbreeding with muggles and mudbloods.

A responsible government would - without crossing the line into eugenics or genocide - try to encourage powerful witches and wizards to have children with each other, and simultaneously discourage additional interbreeding with muggles or low-power wizards. Yet, AFAIK, canon HP doesn’t even have anything like a “moderate middle” that might be advocating for this. The whole thing is just a thinly veneered Nazi allegory - and that doesn’t work at all. (Imagine, if, say, the interbreeding of Jews and Gentiles, or dark skinned and light skinned people, really was harmful to some immensely and demonstrably superior quality of one or the other group. We would live in an incredibly different world.)

IIRC, in the MOTR universe, it turns out that, though the “blood” explanation is widely believed, magicians just don’t know jack about genetics. Rational Harry Potter rules out the “dilution of genes” theory (“magicality” turns out to be a straightforward recessive trait, probably just a single small gene). He discovers that the real issue is simply that past knowledge is hoarded and forgotten (and also thanks to the “Edict of Merlin”, I think it was, old forgotten spells cannot simply be learned from books).

(And -SPOILER ALERT- proving that the empirical foundation of Death Eater philosophy is utterly mistaken then has the interesting effect of bring Draco Malfoy, of all people, into Rational Harry’s fold.)

I didn’t see Hagrid’s comment to mean that wizards today are all half-breeds and thus weak. I think he was just saying that even pure-bloods really aren’t that pure, it’s all a put-on to enforce rigid class hierarchy. And that would make sense, since excessive interbreeding between magical folks would inevitably lead to infertility or other unfitness (just look at the Black family). Which would mean that pretty much all wizards alive today have some muggle ancestry, whether or not they admit it.

I don’t remember anyone ever saying that ancient wizards were more powerful than modern wizards - and even if that was a common belief in the magical world, it doesn’t have to be true. It’s a common myth that “the ancients” were strong and wise beyond modern ken, but that’s just a result of glorifying antiquity (small battles becoming wars, tricks becoming magic) and selective memory (the only wizards who are remembered are those who were pretty awesome).

Magic society may have stagnated (in fact, I’m pretty sure it has) and lost power in the world but that’s not a result of a loss of magical power, it’s the result of incredible parochialism and the growth of muggle society.

89: Racist!

I don’t remember anyone ever saying that ancient wizards were more powerful than modern wizards - and even if that was a common belief in the magical world, it doesn’t have to be true. It’s a common myth that “the ancients” were strong and wise beyond modern ken, but that’s just a result of glorifying antiquity (small battles becoming wars, tricks becoming magic) and selective memory (the only wizards who are remembered are those who were pretty awesome).

There’s something to that, and this might be the direction that canon HP leans (as opposed to MOR, where there evidently really has been a stagnation of magical competence).

Still, I think there’s at least a case to be made. It’s supported not only by the discussion of the very powerful wizards of the past, like the original Hogwarts founders and the semi-mythical Merlin, but also the artifacts they left behind - powerful items like the sentient sorting hat and the deathly hallows, which no one seems to know how to duplicate or match anymore, never mind surpass.

powerful items like the sentient sorting hat and the deathly hallows, which no one seems to know how to duplicate or match anymore, never mind surpass.

That doesn’t just apply to ancient artifacts. There are many instances where a character pulls some rabbit out of his hat because the situation requires it and no one ever thinks to ask how he did it or how someone else could learn to do it. How does Voldemort possess people when no one else can? What were all those cool spells Dumbledore and Voldemort used in their duel, and why doesn’t anyone else seem to know them? How did Dumbledore make the Deluminator and how does it work? What kind of protection did Voldemort put on that sea cave? Spells and magical objects exist because the plot needs them or they sound cool, not because there’s any history or logic to them.

Spells and magical objects exist because the plot needs them or they sound cool, not because there’s any history or logic to them.

True. And annoying, but I guess it’s important not to think these things (unless you’re writing fan fiction).

Mudbloods and halfbloods are never shown as less powerful than purebloods in the books. The opposite, in fact. Hermione is a mudblood and Tom Riddle is a halfblood. There’s no evidence that mixed ancestry results in dilution of power.

But even the purebloods really aren’t that pure.  And if magic were to follow genetic theory, it would still make sense that some half-bloods would be more powerful than some purebloods, especially if there is more than one gene involved.  And presumable the mudbloods have a novel mutation that gives them magic power.  There may very well be other factors involved too.  Compare it to being tall.  A tall person and an average person could potentially have a child that is taller than the child of two tall people.  Or two average people could have a tall child by chance, although it’s rare.  And height can be influenced by external factors, especially nutrition.

Maybe I’m reading way too much into this, but I think a simply genetic explanation works fine to explain all the magical abilities and the supposed dilution of wizard power over generations.

And presumable the mudbloods have a novel mutation that gives them magic power. 

I think Rowling mentioned that they have wizards mixed in with their ancestors. On the other hand, she’s also said magic is a “dominant” gene, so I try not to think too much about it. You can’t really take genetics in Harry Potter any more seriously than in X-Men.

In regard to the magical objects - how much of that is a matter of lost knowledge (ancient wizards being secretive and the like) and how much is just a matter of the fact that the books are told from Harry’s viewpoint - just because he doesn’t know how something is done doesn’t mean it’s not known or knowable.

Honestly, it’s such a fantasy trope that there be ancient, powerful, mysterious magic, that I can’t really see it as a a reflection of how powerful modern wizards are. Even in-story you can believe that the magical world is going through a dark age right now, looking back at a far more advanced past, without thinking that modern wizards have lost power due to intermarriage.

just because he doesn’t know how something is done doesn’t mean it’s not known or knowable.

The point is that no one ever asks, and Rowling clearly doesn’t care. It’s bad worldbuilding and bad storytelling to introduce incredibly powerful plot devices that are used once and forgotten about.

And presumable the mudbloods have a novel mutation that gives them magic power.

Hmm, well, I’m sure we’re all taking this to seriously, but…

The occurrence of novel magic-producing mutations in the muggle population frequent enough to explain the “muggle born” isn’t really compatible with a general [genetic] decline in magical ability. Not only are some of those mutations apparently quite powerful (Hermione), but they should be occurring more and more often - in absolute terms - as the muggle population grows. Plus, many of those new genes would presumably be even more powerful when hybridized into existing magical lines. Overall magical ability should either be increasing, or holding at close to saturation level in that scenario.

The “throwback to a distant magic-using ancestor” is the only really workable explanation for the muggle born. But then that does seem to me that that presents a problem for the genetic decline argument.

There really isn’t any indication in the books that muggle born are typically less powerful than more pure lines like the Malfoys. For example, considering the difference in lineage, people with such ‘weak genes’ as Hermione should probably be started out in the equivalent of magical “special ed” or something. But that’s not the case - IIRC, Hermione is actually treated as something of a talented prodigy almost from the beginning, but this isn’t viewed by anyone as otherwise very remarkable.

I think Rowling mentioned that they have wizards mixed in with their ancestors. On the other hand, she’s also said magic is a “dominant” gene, so I try not to think too much about it. You can’t really take genetics in Harry Potter any more seriously than in X-Men.

Ouch. That just doesn’t work at all.

It occurred to me just now that if you wanted to examine the irrationalities and injustices of the wizarding world, a more thematically consistent way to do it would be to have a character from within that world grow aware of those injustices and turn to muggle science for an answer.  Take, for example, Remus Lupin: a gifted spellcaster, he is still an outcast.  He knows first-hand the moral and ethical shortfalls of magical Britain, and he decides to do something about it.  On the sly, he studies the muggle arts of discovery and, over ten years or more, begins to combine what he learns with magic.  When Dumbledore recruits him to teach Defence Against the Dark Arts, he realises his opportunity to recruit his friend’s son, the Boy Who Lived, to his project.  Together, they (a) work to understand what doesn’t make sense about the wizarding world, and (b) try to build a stronger defence against the Dark Lord.  They decide to use their combination of magic-plus-science to rescue Sirius Black from Azkaban ... but one of his companions in the Order of the Phoenix (Oxford chapter) betrays them, and adventure ensues.

This way, you could at least have the character who teaches science be the older, amiable mentor figure, rather than an unsympathetic little Mary Sue.

Then, too, the horror of Azkaban could be relevant on a more personal level, rather than contemplating, “Gee, if the wizards’ justice system is like their banking, sucks to be falsely accused.”

Maybe a better analogy for magic would be musical talent.  Talented parents tend to have talented offspring, but sometimes you also get a seemingly-random prodigy out of a couple who haven’t played anything since the recorder in 4th grade music class, and sometimes you get musical talent that skips a few generations.  It’s also heavily influenced by environment and practice, just like magic.  But it’s complex and not determined by a single gene, although musical talent does seem to be somewhat dominant.

Or maybe I’m just reading way too much into this since magic isn’t actually real.

But simple Mendelian dominant/recessive models aren’t very effective at predicting most traits, especially any that involve multiple genes.

Or maybe I’m just reading way too much into this since magic isn’t actually real.

*glares at you* Of all the theories put forward in this discussion, this is the least likely.

JK Rowling is an excellent world-builder

Hah. She’s an excellent story-builder, but her world-building skills are lacking. If you start thinking seriously about the mechanics of the magical world (population size, schooling at different ages, choice and availability of careers, etc) then there are definitely some big things that are unclear at best. I associate the phrase “world-builder” with people like Tolkein or even Asimov, who go into detail about the history and politics of their societies in a way that makes them seem like a plausible complex system. Its not necessarily a requirement for a good book (often it can make a book more boring), so I’m not saying the HP are necessarily missing out, but they do not have much serious world-building in them.

Oh, just read a few chapters of that Powers of Rationality. God, I can swear I could see a smug man sneering at me as I read - the author. Not to mention, the man is pretty much driven by tvtropes, with the added problem of him capitalizing phrases that needn’t be and generally being that “look how smart this writing is”. His new characterization of Harry proved even more of an asshole than the canon. Oh, and then I reached the part where Draco says, “One day I will rape that Lovegood girl”, at which point I promptly gave up on the goddamn story.

Harry’s mom is the homecoming queen who is nice to the geeks, a type that isn’t as familiar in pop culture as the “mean girl” type, but is still a type.

Wow, way to project your Americancentric view of the world onto a British series. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Harry’s mom was hated by bigots because she was part of a persecuted minority and her Nice Guy friend Snape happily joined their ranks.

This isn’t mentioned in the movies but it’s frankly foolish to talk about the HP universe when you haven’t read the books.

Harry’s girlfriend is not only a star athlete as well, but is clearly the most popular and beautiful girl in school, with all the boys fawning over her.

Um, no she’s not. I think you’ve confused her with Fleur. The only one who calls her beautiful is Harry. A death eater calls her pretty while attacking her as does someone in Knockturn Alley while trying to sell dark objects but those obviously aren’t meant to count unless getting the rape culture’s seal of approval is a good thing.

And all the boys? Dean Thomas and Michael Corner are nice guys but nothing amazing. Hermione had more attention coming her way when she was younger than Ginny and went to the Yule Ball with international Quidditch star Viktor Krum. She’s also called pretty as often as Ginny is, with as many sincere and dubious instances and even once by Harry himself. Yet no one talks about how beautiful Hermione is and how all the boys must fawn over her. It’s like people want Ginny to be the generic love interest and then tear her down to show off their “feminist” cred.

Harry and Ron, on the other hand, are more stereotypical privileged young men who only put forward a C effort in school because they know they can coast into adulthood on their families’ reputation.

Did you actually read the books or did you stop after the first and just read some fanfic and see a couple of movies? I cannot even fathom how someone could seriously talk about Ron coasting on the Weasley family’s reputation. Prior to the last battle, the Weasleys were probably a step above the Lovegoods in the British wizarding world’s hierarchy. Draco Malfoy is the character who would expect to coast by on his gentlemen’s C’s, expecting that daddy would by him a position in the Ministry just like he did a place on the Quidditch team.

Also, while neither Ron or Harry were as studious as Hermione, they were both solid B students. That’s why Ron was a prefect and Harry was considered for it.

And Dumbledore’s Army was a band of misfits. To use the American-centric analogies you’re so fond of Harry was considered slightly disturbed by his classmates in every other book (Cos, GoF, OOTP), Hermione is the nerdy know-it-all, Ron is the kid on food stamps, Ginny is the tag-a-long, Luna the weirdo, and Neville the loser.

Finally, Methods of Rationality is the most horrid bunch of fanboy mastubatory crap I have ever had the misfortune of reading and I have read a lot of bad fanfic. I seriously think half the people recommending must be trolling. It is Slytherfen apologist nonsense written by someone who imagines themselves very clever when really, they’re too dumb to grasp the very simple themes of children’s book. That kind of smug stupidity is just insufferable.

I’m just glad to see there are a few people out there who hate Methods of Rationality as much as I do. I spent a good chunk of college reading academic tombs devoted to the downfall of Joseph Campbell that had more love and passion for Western literary tropes than that hack.

There are other ways to be an outsider besides being a geek or a nerd.  Harry sees himself as a literal outsider in the most fundamental way-that is, when the books begin, he has been an orphan and a despised, resented burden as long as he can remember.  He belongs to no one.  The series is about a lot of things, but one of the biggest ones is the power of the family unit.  Harry’s unique task is to defeat LV, but his desire, as the mirror of Erised shows, is to belong to a family.  To me, that desire is what drives him and it’s why JKR included the epilogue. 

Harry falls in love with the Weasleys as a whole well before he falls in love with Ginny.  He doesn’t remember his parents, but he does have a deep sense of what he lost when his parents were killed.  Being at Hogwarts and in Gryffindor go some distance to helping him find a place, but we see that both of those groups can be fickle.  The Weasleys (with the exception of Percy after book 4) accept Harry wholly and immediately, and they never question or doubt him.  Here he finds the unconditional acceptance and love he craves.  And from that love he is able to construct a family of his own. 

I disagree strongly that it’s mother love in particular that JKR is extolling.  If it were,  Harry’s sacrifice wouldn’t have worked.

The Huffelpuffs get no attention, so I assume they’re all down in their basement listening to Phish and smoking pot

*puffs* Cool! I wonder what their favorite Gin is? 8/13/93? The Went? *puffs*

I’ve not read any of the book or seen any of the movies, but I’ve loved reading this thread.  I know the basic plots and characters just from reading reviews of the books and movies, I’m a little surprised at how much of the story I know just from my limited exposure to it.

Harry is a nobody-special who finds out that he’s special, and becomes not just the star athlete and hero of his school, but an actual celebrity.

and to everybode’s grate surprise hary turn out to be a natural Seker so in some respekts the skool story hav not changed.

This isn’t mentioned in the movies but it’s frankly foolish to talk about the HP universe when you haven’t read the books.

As much as I like the story itself, I can’t stand most of it’s fans. It’s obviously extremely attractive to the kind of insecure asshole who thinks reading something by a smart person makes him smart. Usually misogynist as well, which is why they object to the author’s admittedly silly attempts at feminism.

Oops, wrong quote. My comment was about Methods of Rationality.

Also, “it’s” =“its.” Fucking autocorrect.

scrumby , do you know who hired Joseph Campbell to help them on their film about, oh, 35 or so years ago?

Um… Star Wars? I know he influenced George Lucas. I don’t have a massive amount of hate for George Campbell but I was a classicist writing papers on Heroic Journey and stuff so I did have to read a lot of criticism on his work. Personally, I think he’s kind of like Freud for psychotherapy, onto a great idea if flawed in his own work. My issue with Methods of Rationality is that it buys into the concept that tropes and themes are some sort of cipher for media savvy. Being able to spot a pattern in the noise is useful but it doesn’t prove you really understand or care about the information being passed to you.

I know he influenced George Lucas.

To be precise, he hired Campbell to help him with the ‘mythic’ aspects of the Star Wars story.

Personally, I think he’s kind of like Freud for psychotherapy, onto a great idea if flawed in his own work.

Even Mencken, 80 years ago, said that there were some positive aspects of what he terms “Freudian quackery” that made sense. 

My method is to question everything, take nothing for granted.

While I wouldn’t have labelled either Harry or Ron as nerds, they’re not exactly Mr Popularity and there are a lot of errors in this article which make me wonder if the author has even read the books.

The idea that Ron can coast into adulthood on his family’s reputation is a joke.  They are poor and a laughing stock among higher-class wizarding society. Ron’s family name is repeatedly dragged through the dirt. He definitely fits the ‘misfit’ type. He’s the less impressive of six brothers - his brothers are smarter, funnier, more athletic or more accomplished than he is, and as the youngest brother, ends up with all the hand-me-downs; and when those hand-me-downs probably weren’t new to start with, that leaves him with some pretty crappy stuff. Because of his family’s poverty he’s forced to wear frilly, old-fashioned dress robes to formal events which humiliates him. He’s almost as far from ‘privileged’ as you can get. While many of his siblings have traits that make them somewhat cool and rise above their very un-cool family reputation (eg, Ginny is smart and pretty; Fred and George are dare devil pranksters; Charlie trains dragons), Ron doesn’t really have anything like that.

Harry definitely has a better chance of coasting into adulthood on his family’s reputation, but for much of the series, he’s ostracised not just by schoolmates but the entire wizarding world. Antigone summarises this well. Book 1 his house hates him for half the year because he has lost them so many points. Book 2 the whole school hates him because they think he’s trying to murder classmates. Book 3, while people don’t hate him, he gets teased for being ‘weak’ when Dementors are around. Book 4 3/4 of the school hates him, thinking he’s trying to amp up his fame by illegally entering the Triwizard Tournament. Book 5 the whole wizarding world thinks he’s a nutter for saying Voldemort’s back - most of his schoolmates follow that line, while a small group is loyal to him, and that small group is forced into hiding by the establishment. Book 6 is much the same as Book 5. Book 7 he’s wanted for Dumbledore’s murder (although by this point certain parts of wizarding society are beginning to realise they’re being taken for a ride by Voldemort’s puppet regime and secretly support Harry. Then again there are those who have lost faith in him since he’s gone underground.).

Not sure what his parents have to do with anything seeing as they’ve been dead for years. Yes, James was arrogant and a jock. For sure. But Harry is sickened by the pranks James & friends play on misfits like Snape. Harry is not described as like his father at all. In fact, when Snape complains that Harry is James all over again, Dumbledore points out Snape is only seeing what he wants to see, and that he (Dumbledore) thinks Harry is much more like Lily.

Onto Hermione. She never ‘dates’ Viktor Krum, sorry. She’s his partner at the Yule Ball, and they exchange a few letters, but that’s about it. They don’t see each other for another 3 years til they meet at a friend’s wedding. The first few years of school she is an insufferable know-it-all and has very few friends. Once she begins to drop the know-it-all act (which she never completely sheds, but hey, that’s part of who she is), she gains more friends. Nerd, yes. Outcast, no. (Though she certainly becomes an outcast once she is forced into hiding by Voldemort’s anti-muggle-born regime). She’s also never described as particularly beautiful. Perhaps you’re thinking of Emma Watson here rather than Hermione Granger. While Book 4 does say she scrubs up well, the rest of the time she’s mainly described as being pretty plain-looking with bushy hair (and buck teeth, until a certain point). She ends up with friends and generally gets along pretty well with people, but I see no evidence that she’s one of the ‘popular’ girls.

chareth cutestory makes a very valid point that has been discussed in analyses of Harry Potter many times - it is generally agreed that one of the reasons HP is so popular is that someone who’d otherwise be so dorky in our world, is so successful and somewhat popular in the wizarding world. Harry was a scrawny kid who was used as a punching bag by his cousin & friends, was forced to wear 4-sizes-too-big hand-me-downs, was hated and downtrodden by his relatives, but found not just acceptance but a certain degree of success in the wizarding world.

I still don’t think it’s right to label Harry and Ron as nerds, because nerds are academically gifted and get good marks. Harry is, perhaps, a Defence Against the Dark Arts nerd. Otherwise, both of them get pretty average marks. But they’re not the supercool Mr Popularity jocks this article suggests they are. On the flip side, I’d suggest Hermione is both more of a nerd *and* more popular than the boys.

Neville Longbottom, however… he’s nerdy. Until Book 7 where he becomes badass. But then he goes on to become the herbology professor. So whatever.

“a lot of times I’ve seen Harry/Draco pairs where Draco is much more sensitive and thoughtful and abused and sympathetic than Harry.”

I’ve also seen a lot of fanfics that pair Hermione and Snape. Just because it’s fanfic-ed doesn’t make it accurate. The terms canon and fanon were invented for a reason.

“a lot of times I’ve seen Harry/Draco pairs where Draco is much more sensitive and thoughtful and abused and sympathetic than Harry.”

I’ve also seen a lot of fanfics that pair Hermione and Snape. Just because it’s fanfic-ed doesn’t make it accurate. The terms canon and fanon were invented for a reason.

Oh, I’m not talking about what’s accurate in canon at all! I’m just using fanfic as a way to talk about how a lot of fans like to imagine or reframe the characters. A lot of fic writers seem quick to sympathize with the villains (like your example, even) and easily view the “heroes” as smug or privileged assholes, which I think supports Amanda’s thesis that Harry’s character isn’t really aimed at geeky sympathies. Whoever the geeks sympathize with will get the sexy/adorable/sympathetic treatment, no matter how out-of-character it truly is… and often that person is anyone but Harry. :p

(You know how fanfic is often such a transparent look into the writer’s psyche! That’s what I’m wildly speculating about here—the fanon treatment of characters is entirely unashamedly aimed to please, and so I assume that “jerkass Harry” is a commonly pleasing version of him.)

Oh, just read a few chapters of that Powers of Rationality. God, I can swear I could see a smug man sneering at me as I read - the author. Not to mention, the man is pretty much driven by tvtropes, with the added problem of him capitalizing phrases that needn’t be and generally being that “look how smart this writing is”. His new characterization of Harry proved even more of an asshole than the canon. Oh, and then I reached the part where Draco says, “One day I will rape that Lovegood girl”, at which point I promptly gave up on the goddamn story.

Honestly, I didn’t pick up on any of that at all when I read it the first time. 

One, I don’t know tvtropes, so that probably helps. But also the Harry character very much reminded me of how I was as an adolescent or even a little later - or at least how I would have thought I would have been with a magic wand. So, a little embarrassing, and annoying literary-wise inasmuch as he’s an undefeatable Mary-sue. But not offensive, and in many ways much easier to identify with than the character from the books. With some neat tidbits of pop cognitive science and so forth wedged in for good measure.

Which isn’t necessarily the author’s intention - he might well just be a jerk - but it made it easy enough to read for me.

Also - the Lovegood rape line is fairly early on, isn’t it? The whole characterization of Malfoy as a “misled and troubled lad” was certainly kind of disturbing and ham fisted. I think there were some parts I liked better after that (and before it started dragging on and going downhill again), but I don’t remember the sequence very well at this point.

Great series of posts lately, Amanda.  This is why I keep coming back.

Draco’s rape line was supposed to show how it’s not only inhuman monsters who rape or think about rape that way. It comes off as a forced attempt at edginess.

It’s a small thing, but I don’t like how Lucius is referred to as “Lord Malfoy.” Lucius isn’t a lord, and there’s no reason to make him one. Tom Riddle styles himself a lord because he’s a delusional megalomaniac, which is less obvious when other wizards can be lords as well.

I know he influenced George Lucas.

To be precise, he hired Campbell to help him with the ‘mythic’ aspects of the Star Wars story.

Personally, I think he’s kind of like Freud for psychotherapy, onto a great idea if flawed in his own work.

Even Mencken, 80 years ago, said that there were some positive aspects of what he terms “Freudian quackery” that made sense.

My method is to question everything, take nothing for granted.

Well this is a cryptic response.

It’s a small thing, but I don’t like how Lucius is referred to as “Lord Malfoy.” Lucius isn’t a lord, and there’s no reason to make him one. Tom Riddle styles himself a lord because he’s a delusional megalomaniac, which is less obvious when other wizards can be lords as well.

Well, to be fair, he does live in a manor that’s been in the family for generations. ‘Lord’ may not be quite the right title, and I think Rowling never really specifies (that, or any other details of wizard-world political structure), but Lucius is obviously some kind of aristocrat.

In MOR, Lucius is portrayed as a confident and intelligent - albeit Machiavellian and bloodthirsty - elite. This is in contrast to his portrayal in canon (in the movies at least, can’t remember exactly how it was in the books) as some kind of pathetic, terrified quisling. The use of the title does help drive that distinction.

As for Tom Riddle, I think it’s almost more interesting to view his appropriation of the title as the aristocratic grasping of a poor orphan boy rather than sheer megalomania.  Though megalomania is probably the better reading on Rowling’s portrayal.

(Incidentally, why does everyone just let him get away with the whole self titling thing? I get the “he who must not be named” part, presumably as some kind of superstition or legitimate concern about magic invocatation. But when people are naming him, why would anyone - anyone not a death eater anyway - use “Voldemort” or “the Dark Lord”  rather than, say, “Mr. Riddle”?)

@Jack Lecou:  Because he can kill them.  And because they want some of his power, so they’ll play his game.  Besides which, not all the DEs knew him as Tom Riddle.

JKR makes a point about there being no titled people in the WW, which is what makes LV’s self-chosen name so striking.

Rowling has decreed in interviews that wizards do not have titles and there is no wizarding royalty. Which doesn’t explain Sir Nicholas or the Bloody Baron, of course, so I really need to stop deluding myself that she remembers what she’s written.

Yes, most people in the wizarding world don’t know Voldemort’s real name, because Dumbledore very thoughtfully kept his secret for him until Harry’s sixth year. Which makes you wonder whose side he was on.

Rowling has decreed in interviews that wizards do not have titles and there is no wizarding royalty. Which doesn’t explain Sir Nicholas or the Bloody Baron, of course, so I really need to stop deluding myself that she remembers what she’s written.

Or you could stop deluding yourself that either character could have received titles form muggle authorities either by birth or some other interaction or merely been self-chosen names in the same way Lord Voldemort’s was.

I don’t happen to hold that particular delusion, but thanks for the advice.

They aren’t wizards.  They’re ghosts.  They were regular people who chose not to “move on” after they died.  See Book 5.

Yes, most people in the wizarding world don’t know Voldemort’s real name, because Dumbledore very thoughtfully kept his secret for him until Harry’s sixth year. Which makes you wonder whose side he was on.

Dumbledore was maaaaybe not the best communicator sometimes. See: everything he ever did. (Teenage Bagelsan adds “Dumbledore, you cryptic ageist tenured wizarding fucker!”)

They aren’t wizards.  They’re ghosts.  They were regular people who chose not to “move on” after they died.  See Book 5.

Nick states in so many words that only wizards can become ghosts. See Book 5. Or don’t, since it’s apparently easier to love and defend the books if you forget what happens in them.

Dumbledore was maaaaybe not the best communicator sometimes. See: everything he ever did. (Teenage Bagelsan adds “Dumbledore, you cryptic ageist tenured wizarding fucker!”)

I don’t really blame Dumbledore for that. Narrative misdirection is Rowling’s only trick, and most of the time it was Dumbledore’s job to carry it out. He was forced to be both the infallible plot god and a flawed human being at the same time, which is a pretty unenviable position.

He was forced to be both the infallible plot god and a flawed human being at the same time, which is a pretty unenviable position.

True. ...Aaand she turned his boyfriend evil. Hm. *shakes fist* ROWLING, YOU RICH BASTARD!

Nick states in so many words that only wizards can become ghosts. See Book 5. Or don’t, since it’s apparently easier to love and defend the books if you forget what happens in them.

And it’s easier to malign them when you jump to conclusions. The lack of explanation as to where the Barron or Sir Nick acquired titles doesn’t contradict wizarding society not bestowing titles. They could have received/inherited them from muggle society or just adopted them on a whim. America doesn’t bestow titles either but Prince William is still refereed to as prince and San Fransisco hailed Joshua Norton as Emperor.

Rowling has decreed in interviews that wizards do not have titles and there is no wizarding royalty. Which doesn’t explain Sir Nicholas or the Bloody Baron, of course, so I really need to stop deluding myself that she remembers what she’s written.

Huh. Well, even aside from any contradictions with the text, I don’t see how that makes sense. It’s pretty evident that the current political structure of magical Britain apes muggle Britain. It’s no big leap to project that backward to a more authoritarian/aristocratic age and assume that, like muggle Britain, magical Britain retains some of those trappings.

I guess you could argue that this aping of muggle social structure didn’t always hold, and that historically magical Britain was quite different, say run more along the lines of a democratic or meritocratic order or something. But then, to me this wouldn’t really jibe well with the existence of magical families - with no visible source of income or engagement in productive activity - in possession of ancient aristocratic manor houses. Or the rather arbitrary and authoritarian nature of other wizard world institutions, like the Wizengamot.

I see Wikipedia says that back in the 1200s everything used to be run by a “Wizards Council” - but there’s no detail about how such leaders were selected. Aside from discussion of a couple of notable failures to integrate non-human members of the magical world in a democratic manner, there’s no mention of how it actually worked. (And is it really plausible to believe that the wizarding world - which in many ways acts quite backwards and reactionary - was flirting with full democracy and liberal inclusiveness in the middle of the dark ages?)

All in all, I don’t know that Rowling has really painted a very consistent picture here. There are a variety of ways to resolve it, but I think anyone writing some fan fiction trying to flesh this out is probably going to end up falling afoul of canon one way or another.

@Jack Lecou:  Because he can kill them.  And because they want some of his power, so they’ll play his game.  Besides which, not all the DEs knew him as Tom Riddle.

I meant the NON Death Eaters. Professor McGonagall, for example. Does she not know Riddle’s real name?

I just saw the movie - there’s a scene before the final battle where she finally uses his name, commenting that they might as well, because he’ll probably kill them anyway. Why not use the name Tom Riddle?

I suppose it’s obviously just for dramatic purposes. For the reader/viewer, it wouldn’t be so scary if everyone called the villain ‘Tom’ instead of ‘Lord Voldemort’. (That’s presumably also why Voldemort doesn’t hug more people, though that would have been pretty great.)

If I remember correctly, the “no wizarding royalty” statement was made to clarify readers’ questions about who the Half-Blood Prince might be before the book came out. She might have come up with that rule before then, but I don’t remember it.

They could have received/inherited them from muggle society or just adopted them on a whim.

Sure, why not. Rowling doesn’t care, so why should we? Worldbuilding is for losers who aren’t billionaires.

I meant the NON Death Eaters. Professor McGonagall, for example. Does she not know Riddle’s real name?

She apparently doesn’t. She was in school at the same time he was, if we can believe anything Rowling says about ages, but she doesn’t know who he turned out to be until Dumbledore is allowed to give the game away.