Wow, lots of replies. And I am too drunk to bother reading any.
Terry Pratchet is a much much more talented writer than JK Rowling. But JK’s idea was (perhaps by accident) genius.
If only it was Terry that had thought of it.
I can’t stand Terry Pratchett’s writing. So, no contest at all. JK Rowling is the superior author and Harry Potter wins hands down.
But it is racist to come up with one like “muggle”, which sounds to me more like an alternate to “fool” than anything else and is non-descriptive besides. If you’re not racist, you come up with something that describes the differences but remains neutral; “mundanes” or “unmagicals” would work as well, but without the derogratory connotations. That the wizard community do not choose to use such a term tells me they are all racist.
**
Only the KKK-style ones. Nothing is ever made of the local equivalent of “Hell, we don’t beat our slaves - they’re almost part of the family”.
**
Did nobody get that damn memo? 
**
You’re an adult reading what are most definitely only children’s books and raving about how fantastic they are. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that you wouldn’t know a good book if you were hit over the head with it (paperback edition - wouldn’t want to damage your two surviving brain cells) or you are slumming it?
Incidentally, Balance, I note that you’re in Texas and so must have lots of guns. Would you mind zipping over to Austin and shooting Hazel-rah? 
I just read the first Discworld book last week. I don’t know. I think I got the jokes, but I didn’t find it all that entertaining. Just a plod to read through. Meanwhile, a few days before I read the newest Potter, and I breezed through it in something like 12 hours at one sitting. Sure, it’s popcorn, but I found it a much more entertaining and page-turning read than Pratchett.
I have my problems with Rowling’s style and her rather, IMHO, rather one-dimentional character development, but her books are as addictive as crack. I would agree Pratchett’s a better writer, but Rowling is a better storyteller.
I disagree with the b.s. about nobody over ten has any business reading these books. Children’s books are among my favorite genres, and a good children’s writer appeals to a larger demographic than his/her target audience. Haven’t you ever gone back to children’s books by Silverstein, Seuss, Carroll, Kipling, or whoever, as an adult? It’s amazing how differently you see these works compared with when you first read them or had them read to you. And they still have meaning and insight and inspiration. I read heavy literary grown-up books for pleasure regularly, too, but sometimes it’s just nice to relax with a good piece of juvenille literature.
The Colour of Magic isn’t really representative of the novels. Try Mort instead.
**
Exactly my point.
Well, I will check out his other works, because I can see myself like his work if I can get past the style. The subject and humor suit me, but The Colour of Magic didn’t grab me.
As for your second comment, while I do agree with your comments about Rowling’s style, her books do appeal to a large audience, as is evidenced by a lot of people here. Does that make her good? Who knows, but a lot of literate adults as well as children like her books, so I think there must be some talent and sophistication in her writing. Even thought I’m not sure what it is, I do like the series.
I agree with Evil Death on this topic. In fact, skip The Colour of Magic, The Light Fantastic and* Sourcery* all together. When you read the rest of them, and you will, you can go back. In fact, his best books are from Small Gods and onwards.
Indeed. The fact that a word sounds silly to you means that it is racist. I must make a note of that. I don’t claim to know how much thought Rowling put into the choice of the word–very little, I suspect–but in the context of the stories, there is no reason to assume that the word was originally nondescriptive. Wizarding society is very old and seems to have had efficient internal communications longer than muggle society; the etymology of the term could be quite convoluted. It could easily derive from a non-English word that meant “without magic”.
The Death Eaters are the most obvious cases, true. They’re also the ones that are most vilified, for good reason. They’re not alone, though. Fudge, one of the condescending bigots you allude to, is clearly shown in a negative light. Ron and Mr. Weasley also get bitten by their ignorance occasionally, although to a lesser extent. There’s a scale, you see: Hateful bigots are shown as villains, condescending bigots as idiots, and the ignorant but well-intentioned folk as decent people who make mistakes. Funny how they’re not all painted with the same brush, isn’t it?
Perhaps it had a tragic shredder accident en route?
Hmmm…I don’t recall raving about anything. I don’t even really rave about Pratchett. I said I enjoy the books, and pointed out some good things about them. I try to reserve raving for truly special books, like Hodgell’s Godstalk. What conclusion could you draw from that? Perhaps you might draw the conclusion that I enjoy a wider range of reading material than you? That I do not kowtow to established genre boundaries? That I’m not a snotty elitist?
I know this was a joke, and I’ll admit that I got a bit of a grin out of it. (Honestly, hazel, saying you don’t like Pratchett in this thread? What were you thinking? ;))
I can’t quite let it slide in this context, though. You just spent several posts complaining about racial prejudice in the Potter books…and then you spout a stereotype. That gun-totin’ Texan brush is lookin’ mighty broad. As it happens, I hate guns, and won’t even touch one if I can avoid it. I’m not trying to pick on you here, I just found the juxtaposition amusing.
You’re dead-on about The Colour of Magic, though. I enjoyed the book, but it’s not representative, and it’s not one of the ones I go back to often.
I recommend Reaper Man, Moving Pictures and Small Gods for Pratchett beginners. Mort is also funny. I admit to being hopelessly behind in the more recent works hangs head in shame
Yeah, me too. And written far better.
Important: Don’t Judge Terry Pratchet on his early books! His talent balooned somewhere in the middle. His most recent books make his early books look like a poor literature student’s assignment.
Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said the word sounded silly, I said that it sounded racist. (It does sound silly, but that’s not the point.)
**
“Nigger” derives from a non-English word that means “with the shape of a black”. Do you still have a point?
**
That’s not what I’m referring to. Almost every single wizard is a segregationist, and barring only one or two they have no interest whatsoever in the mundane world. They have chosen to set themselves apart from humanity, and believe themselves to be superior to it.
**
The “you” was generic.
**
Of course it is - everything’s big in Texas!
Seriously, though, there are 2.5 guns owned in Texas for every man, woman and child in the state. It isn’t really a stereotype when it’s generally true, is it?
I got hooked on Terry Pratchett through The Light Fantastic, so the early books aren’t that horrible. But the later stuff is definitely superior.
I’d recommend Small Gods, Mort, Soul Music, or Guards! Guards!, myself.
The Colour of Magic is IMHO, Terry’s weakest book. He started picking up steam with The Light Fantastic, and just kept getting better from there on.
And how, dare I ask, can a word sound racist? “Muggle” is an invented term and has no relationship or resemblance to any racial slur in the English language.
I’m sorry about the hijack, folks, but I’m not ready to let this go yet. I hope we haven’t spoiled anything for Griffin.
My apologies. I did not intend to put words into your mouth–I believe your association of the word “muggle” with “fool” caused me to interpret your comment in that fashion.
So it sounds racist to you. It doesn’t sound racist to me. Neither opinion is sufficient in itself to determine whether or not the term is racist. The difference is that I’m not making such a claim.
Your contention was that the wizarding society could use a different term, such as “mundanes” or “nonmagicals” to describe those without the ability to work magic. I posited a reason within continuity why they would use “muggle”; it would be entirely reasonable that the word would have been derived from a term that meant “nonmagical” at some point in the past. If you are going to discuss groups of people with common characteristics, you must devise a way to refer to them. Generally, the term people come up with references the shared characteristics. That doesn’t automatically make the term racist. The word is a tool–you can keep it clean and well-tended, and it will continue to serve its intended function… or you can foul it and use it to do things for which it was not meant. Negative connotations like the one you cite are acquired through time and ill-use. My point is that, as “muggle” is a new-minted word, it hasn’t had any opportunity to acquire them. I conclude that any negative associations are those you invented in your own mind. Could it have developed those connotations in the history of Rowling’s fantasy world? Yes, but I see no evidence of it. That role seems to have been filled by the word “mudblood”, instead.
Speaking of negative connotations…you realize that “mundane” means “ordinary” with connotations of “not spectacular” and “boring”? Also, the formation of “nonmagical” implies that “magical” is the natural state of things, and that nonmagical things are somehow lacking. Both have connotations that would, IMHO, be somewhat insulting to a group to which they were applied. Happily, “muggle” carries no such baggage.
Yes, as I have said, wizarding society is racist. Isolation and ignorance tend to do that to a society. There may have initially been good reasons for the isolation; there have been periods in history when they would have been vilified and attacked because of their powers. There is even a reference–in PoA, I believe–to the Burning Times, although it’s implied that the isolationist policy was already in place at the time. The magical folk would probably not have been in too much danger in situations with relatively small numbers of hostiles, but they are apparently a very small minority of the population, and always have been. If it came to an open conflict, they would have been horribly outnumbered. They may have withdrawn into secrecy and isolation to prevent a very messy war. Given the long-term effect on their society, it may have been a mistake, but it’s an understandable one. The only thing they could do about it in the period during which the books are set is begin an aggressive program to educate young wizards and witches about muggles, with an eye to eventual reintegration. There is a Muggle Studies class, but it’s an elective. The next step would be to make it mandatory. Carefully selected muggles would be introduced to the wizarding world, starting perhaps with the parents of magical children, with an eye to have educators ready among the muggles as well. It would be a very touchy business, and it would take generations, but it would ultimately be rewarding for everyone.
Very well, I shall take you at your word. Since it was in direct response to a quote specifically referring to me, I’m sure you can see how I would interpret it that way. Instead, you were insulting everyone who enthusiastically endorses the Potter books. How broad-minded of you.
Did you really mean that question? I hope you’re just yanking my chain, but I’ll answer just in case.
First off: Yes. It is still a stereotype, even if it is true for the majority of the members of a group. You are taking a group that is connected by a single shared characteristic (Texan), in which a second characteristic (gun ownership) occurs, and incorrectly assuming that all members of the group also share the second characteristic. Let’s say I assemble a group of 100 people, 90 of whom eat eggs and 10 of whom do not. I give them all tshirts with a big “M” on them, and we agree to call them “Emmers”. If, on seeing the tshirt, you conclude that the person wearing it is an Emmer and therefore eats eggs, you are applying a stereotype. If we further say that one of the 10 Emmers who does not eat eggs is violently allergic to them, it could even be a harmful stereotype, as you could assume that it was OK to serve her a dish with eggs in it.
Second: An average distribution of a characteristic is not necessarily representative of individual characteristics. An average of 2.5 guns per Texan does not mean that the average Texan owns 2.5 guns. It could mean that one rich, obsessive collector owns 2.5 times as many guns as there are people in Texas, while no other Texans pack heat. That example is obviously taken to a ludicrous extreme, but it illustrates my point. Not every Texan owns a gun (indeed, many do not, although I don’t have any statistics on how many, exactly), while some own many of them. Therefore, assuming that any given Texan owns a gun is applying a stereotype.
I’m thoroughly confused now. So, Evil Death, are you actually trying to say that “Muggle” has racist connotations outside the Harry Potter books? As I interpreted your comment, you simply meant it’s racist within the context of Harry Potter. Of course it’s meant to be racist (or classist or whatever-ist.) That’s the whole point, and it’s the bad guys using these words, and Rowling of course drives home the point repeatedly that it’s good to be a Muggle. So I’m puzzled as to what exactly everybody is arguing here on this point.
That’s a major confusion on your part, then, conflating someone’s opinion as to the connotations of a word with what they think the word sounds like. “Defenestrate” is a lovely word IMHO, but being thrown out of a window doesn’t sound too appealing to me.
**
Exactly what does that mean - that you’re not making a claim at all, or that you’re not claiming the term is not racist?
**
And I agreed with you. My point is that your reasoning for their using the term is exactly that which led to using the racial pejorative to which I compared it. If it looks like a chicken, squawks like a chicken and tastes like chicken, I’m inclined to believe that it’s a chicken until I receive proof that it’s not.
**
You’re trying to have it both ways here. If you take the term as new-minted, you cannot defend it on basis of its etymology. If you do use the etymology, you also have to accept that the history created for it be consistent with comparative events in real history.
**
No. “Mudblood” is the local equivalent of “half-breed” - insulting, yes, but to a different racial type.
**
I know full well what it means, thank you, and it doesn’t mean “ordinary”. Rather, it means “not out of the ordinary” - a slight difference, but not insignificant in the context.
**
Not in my English language, it doesn’t. Adjectives define and distinguish objects by characteristics they possess that other objects do not; antonyms are used to define objects that do not have a given characteristic where making a distinction is necessary.
**
Which in turn suggests that those times were caused by the wizards rather than by society at large, and everything since by their puffed-up sense of superiority.
I have apologized for the mild hyperbole that resulted. I will note, however, that you were basing your assessment of the word’s connotations on the sound of the word. In other words, you were conflating the same two things I did. Sauce for the goose…
It means that I do not claim that my opinion of the sound of the word is sufficient evidence that it is not racist. You have claimed that it is racist because, in your opinion, it sounds racist.
First, you must verify that it actually looks, squawks, and tastes like a chicken. It is not sufficient to say “People came up with word x from some description of a group of people, and it became a slur. Therefore all words that are made up to describe a group of people automatically become slurs.” Consider the word “British”: It is derived from the Old English “Brettas”, meaning “of Celtic origin”. Now it simply refers to people from a certain nation, and carries no negative connotations. Neither your counterexample nor your appeal to old aphorisms proves that “muggle” carries any more negative baggage than “British”.
I’m dealing with two aspects of the question, which arise because this word was invented for a work of fiction.
One aspect deals with the word within the continuity of the fictional world. This is the context in which I addressed etymology. I brought it up in response to your claim that they should use some other word that has a modern meaning descriptive of people unable to work magic. In the fictional world, magical people presumably came up with the word in the distant past–it is a fairly obvious distinction to make, after all–before the words you prefer came into use. It would presumably have changed somewhat as the language evolved around it, but no one saw any good reason to abandon it. It was, after all, sitting there doing its job without much fuss. The fact that a word is old doesn’t necessarily make it racist, either.
The other aspect is the real world situation, in which “muggle” is a newly coined word. I don’t know how Rowling came up with it, but somehow I rather doubt that she did it with racist intent. The word hasn’t been around long enough to acquire negative connotations. If it wasn’t invented with racist intent, and it hasn’t had an opportunity turn into a slur through usage, what makes it “sound” racist? The fact that it has two "g"s in it?
Hermione is called a “mudblood” by Malfoy, and she is not a half-breed. Both of her parents are muggles. I infer that it can be used to refer to muggles in a derogatory manner.
Merriam-Webster: “characterized by the practical, transitory, and ordinary”. The association with transitory (“temporary” and “not persistent”) is worse than the “boring” connotation I mentioned before, implying that “mundanes” are of no lasting importance.
In terms of strict definitions, that’s true. However, given that this entire business is about associations and implications that go beyond the strict definition, that is not enough. I see a distinction between using a directly descriptive word and creating an antonym to describe the same thing. Consider the difference between a native of the US referring to someone from elsewhere as “foreign” or as “unamerican”. Both have the same basic meaning, but different implications. “Nonmagical” is not nearly that heavy-handed, but I see it as slightly negative.
The point of this is not to specifically bash your suggested words. The point is that existing words can have negative connotations when used the way you propose. There is no reason to suppose that such a word would somehow be intrinsically superior to the a term invented for the purpose.
Where in the world (or in the books, or in my comments, for that matter) did you pull this from? In no way does what I said suggest that the magical folk were responsible for such times. These things have happened to people in the real world who had no magical powers–did old spinsters cause the Burning Times? I’ll grant that in a world in which magic works, there could have been wrongs on both sides. My suggestion was that the magical folk might have withdrawn from contact with muggles to stop such incidents, regardless of who caused them. This isolation had unintended consequences, as we’ve established, but those consequences would probably not include major muggle/wizard conflicts.
We’ve hijacked this thread too far already. If you want to discuss it further, start a separate thread.
One word: Eric
I think Y’all need to get out more. EvilDeath, For a person who claims to loathe HP you sure now a lot more about it than a casual reading of the first two books would indicate.
**Balance, ** except that I suspect you’re a female I think I am in love!