The one exception I can come up with (other than Muggle-borns, of course) is Barty Crouch, who at the World Cup presented the perfect image of an impeccable Muggle executive. But then, Crouch is always impeccably perfect about everything, and it’s remarked there that he’s the only one who could really “pass”.
Lamia writes:
> Were people really calling it a great fantasy series?
Say what? You’ve been exposed to the same world-wide publicity machine that I have. It’s the only children’s fantasy series that many people have even heard of. There are constantly news stories in the media about it, most of which assume without even any discussion that there’s a huge amount of fans for the books (and for the movies). The reaction among long-time fantasy fans I know was mixed. Nobody hated it, but otherwise the reaction ranged from those who thought as I did that it was just O.K. to those who thought it was great. It was certainly impossible to ignore it.
> I did say “when we’ve seen”, didn’t I?
The problem is that we’re given very little examples of the interaction of wizards and muggles and the examples we’re given are inconsistent. There’s also cases where we’re told that muggles have to have their minds wiped of their recent memories when they see wizards do something magical. We’re also told that the Prime Minister knows about wizards and that the Ministry of Magic is thus like one of these supersecret spy agencies in bad espionage novels. That is, when the Prime Minister takes office he’s taken aside and told, “See, there’s this supersecret agency we now have to be tell you about.”
And that publicity machine has been promoting the books as a children’s/YA series. I don’t recall any proclaimations that Rowling was the second coming of Tolkein, although many have compared her to Dahl. That’s not a very apt comparison IMHO, but they are at least both British children’s writers who write stories about kids having adventures in a world that’s like our own but with a large dash of fantasy.
Even prior to reading the books I never for a moment had the impression that they were Serious Epic Fantasy or intended for an adult audience…merely that they were a quality children’s series that adults could also enjoy.
*Is that your favorite word or something? If, as you said in your last post, you’re forcing yourself through the series so people will listen to your complaints about it, you could at least try to be clear in what you mean by “inconsistent”. Normally when people speak of inconsistency in this context they mean the examples contradict or are incompatible with each other. You have yet to come up with an actual contradiction. You seem to be using the word “inconsistent” instead to mean that the examples aren’t all the same, which is a legitimate definition, but I can’t imagine the books being improved by making every example of cross-cultural character interaction in the text exactly the same as all the others. Such a thing also would not be consistent with the way cross-cultural interaction works in reality.
Rowling hasn’t given us enough information for there to be much true internal inconsistency in the background of her world. Probably because she’s not especially great at world-building, but is smart enough not to emphasize her weak spots. Things like the rules of Quidditch may be stupid, as others have mentioned here, but they are at least the same rules for each game and don’t contradict anything else in the text. Depiction of religion in the wizarding world has been minimal and vague; all we really know is that Hogwarts officially observes secularized celebrations of Halloween and Christmas, but again this does not contradict anything else we’ve seen about the practices or beliefs of witches and wizards.
*Why did you demand a cite from me if you just wanted to change the subject? The fact that the PM is aware of the existence of the wizarding world doesn’t have anything to do with my suggestion (supported by the text) that most witches and wizards never have need to attempt to pass as ordinary Muggles because passing as “weirdo” Muggles is quite sufficient.
That the PM/MoM relationship seems like something from a bad spy novel to you may indicate that there’s less-than-first-class writing at work, but it does not contradict anything else in the books. Most Muggles must never learn of the wizarding world, but we’ve seen from the beginning that there are exceptions made for relatives. Why shouldn’t there also be exceptions made for powerful Muggles whose help might be essential in a major crisis? The MoM seems to consider knowledge of the wizarding world to be available to Muggles on a “need to know” basis. If Muggles learn something they don’t have the need to know, the MoM busts out the memory charms. They may have other magical safeguards in place to keep Muggles in the know from blabbing, but this is another point Rowling hasn’t addressed.
And I believe that is all I have to say on the subject to you. You have already admitted that your only goals in reading the series are 1) to complete the series for the sake of completing it and 2) to back up your criticisms of the series’ flaws. Well, if you’re determined to find fault you’re going to find it. You are quite free to read books you don’t enjoy for the purpose of criticizing them online, but I don’t have any further interest in discussing them with someone who has that intent. There’s no point to it.
Lamia,
The publicity machine didn’t just promote the series as another children’s fantasy series. It promoted it as the greatest children’s fantasy series ever. I started the books hopeful that the series would be as good as its publicity. As I went on, it slowly became clear that I found it to be a passible but seriously flawed series. Is it that surprising that I would complete a series that is, at least at the moment, as famous as any fantasy series ever written (except for Tolkien)? Do you quit reading any series whenever you decide that it’s not a great series? Do you quit reading a single book at the point when you decide that it’s not a great book? How often do you finish books then? Why do you think that there’s no point in my criticizing the series? Do you really think that only people that love a series are qualified to criticize it?
If this were more than a children’s book, one would expect the normal peoples of the world to fear and try to destroy the wizards.
It’s children’s literature. Harry can float the nasty aunt off to what would in the real world be a horrible death without remorse.
The very nature of the magical world makes Harry, a loser in the real world, special. In order to be special in the magical world, we have the position he plays in quidditch that nullifys the efforts of all other players.
Get real, guy, what book or movie isn’t promoted as the best ever?
I’ll help you complain about children’s genre expanded as epic fantasy, let’s find something to gang up on them about.
carnivorousplant writes:
> Get real, guy, what book or movie isn’t promoted as the best ever?
Oh, come on. The publicity for the Harry Potter books was much larger than for most books and movies.
I’ve never really seen them as anything other than entertaining childrens books. You seem to have gained the impression that they were somehow related in quality to the Lord of the Rings*, I have no idea where you would get that idea.
*I have actually tried twice but failed to get into these books, Tolkeins writing just doesn’t engage me.
Okay, I just wanted to jump in with a minor nitpick.
Quidditch is NOT a pointless game - or at least not any more so than any other sport. Catching the Snitch does NOT mean your team automatically wins. It means the game is over and your team has an extra 150 points. Yeah, that means your team is most likely the winner, but if the other team is enough points ahead, they’ll still win. This actually happens in GoF. This would also explain why the other players play so fiercely; it’s important to score as many points as possible while stopping the other team scoring just in case the other team gets the Snitch first. One of the beefs I had with the first movie was that Wood explained the game wrong when he told Harry if he caught the Snitch Gryffindor wins.
And to address the OP: I know traditionally godparents were appointed to fulfill some role in religious instruction (I’m rather vague on the details, having been raised as a generic Christian who only went to church on Easter), but in recent years I’ve gotten the impression that “godfather” has become more or less synonymous with “legal guardian.”
Still, 150 points is the equivalent of 15 goals – a huge lead. The situation in GoF is presented as being an anomaly; clearly it is normally the case that Snitch=victory.
Even if it is possible to win without catching the Snitch, the game is still badly unbalanced. It would be better if catching the Snitch only gave the equivalent of 2 or 3 goals (20 or 30 points). That would be enough to make a difference in a close game, but not so much that catching the Snitch becomes a near-certain victory.
True, but then the other players lose a lot of the incentive to frantically score points by any means possible, meaning there’s less crashing, bashing, Bludger-smashing action to keep the spectators interested. The way I see it, competition is fierce to get and maintain a 150+ point lead before the other team does, while the Seekers are engaged in trying to catch the Snitch before the opposing team can reach that point lead. If you reduce the points the Snitch is worth, you reduce a lot of the urgency players feel to score goals, which IMO would generally wussify the whole game.
Take it for what it’s worth. It’s a satisfactory enough explanation for me, especially when you consider that Harry is always gonna catch the Snitch, 'cause he’s the hero. 
I really don’t think so. Most books, perhaps, but not most movies, not by a long shot. I hadn’t even heard of the HP books until the third one had come out.
I do not engage in “pleasure reading” that is not pleasurable. Somehow, I still manage to read quite a lot of books.
*For someone who gets so upset about having his words misinterpreted, you aren’t very good at reading what other people write. I said there was no point in my discussing the series further with you. I shouldn’t even call it “discussing”, since you’ve been happy to ignore every point I’ve made about the books. I was initally willing to attribute this to some failure to communicate on my part, but now I see you’re not interested in an exchange of ideas with me on this topic. It may be amusing for you to harp on your problems with a series you dragged yourself through just to have something to complain about, but it’s become pretty darn boring for me.
I never managed to make it through The Fellowship of the Ring either. I’ve always meant to get around to trying again someday (it’s been a decade since my last attempt), but I have yet to do so. Nothing against Tolkein or the books, I just didn’t get into it. I know quite a few avid readers and fans of fantasy who failed in their attempts to tackle Tolkein as well.
On the other hand, I’ve never met anyone who was actually unable to finish one of the Harry Potter books. They’re obviously much easier and more accessable than Tolkein…and plenty of other fantasy or even children’s fantasy books. This doesn’t make them better, but it explains why they’ve been so much more popular than other books people point to when they say “How can Harry Potter be more popular than this?” Heck, I think the Series of Unfortunate Events books are a better, funnier, and more intelligent recent children’s series than Harry Potter, but they’re also more difficult to appreciate and enjoy. (I’ve seen posts from adult readers on this very board who didn’t get the humor.) Although they’ve been quite successful, Rowling has no need to worry that Lemony Snicket is going to overtake her in terms of popularity.
I’ve always considered all competitive sports to be fairly pointless, which may be why Quidditch doesn’t bother me the way it does some people. It’s doesn’t seem much sillier to me than many other popular games!
*This is true. However, as Diceman says, it would seem more fun for the other members of the team if capturing the Snitch wasn’t worth quite so many points. But the characters in the books enjoy it well enough as it is, and real kids enjoy plenty of things that wouldn’t be all that fun for me (like pretty much every sport in the world!), so this isn’t something that annoys me about the books.
I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve actually considered how to improve Quidditch, and I think only one rule change would fix it:
Catching the Snitch gives you one (1) point and ends the game.
That way, if the game is tied, catching the Snitch wins the game, and both Seekers will try to do so. In any other situation, you only want to catch the Snitch if your team is ahead. The Seeker on a team that is behind will try to keep the other Seeker from catching the Snitch until his team can score some more goals.
That approach would actually infuse a small amount of strategy into the game, and would require the Seeker to be aware of what is going on down on the playing field. A Seeker would have to keep his head in the game, lest he catch the Snitch when his opponents are leading.
Neither am I a sports person. I didn’t notice the snitch nullifying the efforts of others until it was pointed out.
As I mentioned, the genre is about the youg person protagonist saving the day. Quidditch is a literary device so that Harry can win the game by his own efforts.
My only point is that the goofy structure of the game seems to be another instance of JKR’s failure to think through, or fully imagine, each of the plot devices she uses (and another reason I see the books as a somewhat-creaky pastiche of school stories, high fantasy, old-style detective yarn, etc.). Chicks don’t know sports (I keed, I keed) – but if P.G. Wodehouse had invented Quidditch, you’d be confident that he’d thought through the rules in great detail based on his schoolday cricket memories; and if Tolkien invented it, you’d have the unavoidable certainty that somewhere in his library was an 800 page pre-history of the game (you’d also live in fear, if you knew the guy, that he might break into a few hundred spontaneous quatrains from said pre-history, preferably in an ancient language known only to the Quidditch sacerdotes). JKR – not quite so obsessive with the details.
JKR’s rules seem to create an inexorable pressure on a currently-losing team to commit fouls – which is not good in any even partly-contact sport. How is a losing Seeker to respond, other than to try to interfere with the winning Seeker’s getting the snitch? So what do you do? Harshly penalize intereference or fouling (basketball is still struggling with how to prevent intentional fouls; you can’t be too lenient, or the losing team will foul at will to stay in the game, but you can’t be too harsh, or a ten point lead with a few minutes to go will be insurmountable and there will be few close, exciting finishes). Many, many rules in sport (the shot clock in basketball, the icing rules in hockey) deal with trying to strike the right balance between preserving/cementing a win, and keeping contests competitive so that the action throughout the whole game matters (rather than having the game decided conclusively by (a) obtaining an early lead or (b) scoring some mega-point grand slam that wipes out all that has come before).
I don’t think Rowling is “avoiding” the issue. I think it’s more likely that she is simply not religious. Here are statistics on church attendance in the UK:
Adult weekly churchgoers:
England 9% of total adult population
Wales 13% of total adult population
Scotland 17% of total adult population
Children weekly churchgoers:
England 15% of total child (under 15 years) population
Wales 21% of total child population
Scotland 20% of total child population.
She probably leads a secular life, where religion mainly comes up around major holidays.
According to this website:
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/rowling.html
here is what’s known of her religious beliefs:
> She has said she is not a Wiccan. She has said that she believes in God and
> attends church from time to time (“more than weddings and christenings”). She
> has cited involvement with the Church of Scotland, but has so far not been too
> much more specific about her own religious beliefs.