Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

1. JKR was writing stories to entertain children. The stories were not targeted at adult readers who might be tempted to think all that crap through.

If a story is not good enough for adults it is not a good children's story.

Amen!

You are either born with magic or you are not. It is not dependant upon bloodlines at all. If it was, then how could Hermione often be described as brilliant, to the point of being said to be "the brightest witch of her age".

Her mother had an affair with a wizard that never came to light?

Her mother had an affair with a wizard that never came to light?

Next you'll be suggesting her mother was from a different cast...

Or do you claim this unknown wizard waved his wand at her and uttered "Expectoinninemonthium" ??

Or do you claim this unknown wizard pee-chee foldwaved his wand at her "Expectoinninemonthium" ??

Why should that be necessary? Children are a not unexpected outcome from an extramarital affair, even without magic being involved.

Hermione was school age at the start of the first book.

Can you point to anything in the actual books written by JKR that would preclude an affair on the part of her mother?

Can you point to anything in the actual books written by JKR that would preclude an affair on the part of her mother?

Can you point to anything the actual books written by JKR that would suggest an affair on the part of her mother?

Can you point to anything the actual books written by JKR that would suggest an affair on the part of her mother?

As I understand it there are a number of things in the books that at least imply that the wizarding community believes that there is a hereditary component to it.

For example, the use of the terms mud-blood and half-blood, terms that would make no sense in the absence of at least a belief that there is a hereditary component. So the magical community in the Harry Potter world believes that there's a hereditary component even if it's untrue.

As I understand it, in the cannon of the stories written by JKR herself, Hermione is the only witch/wizard without at least one magical parent.

As far as I know this seeming contradiction is never resolved in JKR's books.

There are only two ways to resolve the contradiction, either the community's belief in a hereditary component is false or Hermione does in fact have at least one magical parent.

or grandparent

Point.

Hermione is the only witch/wizard without at least one magical parent.

Creevy brothers, Justin Finch-Fletchley, Sally Anne Perks ...

Overall, JKR could have done far better with the story, but she's not a very good writer in general.

Poor JKR!

Yea, I'm sure she's crying all the way to her bank account. Still, all the wealth in the world doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade.

doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade

No. But expect all the woke SJW types to attack if you do...

If bloodline determined magic ability, why are 'squibs' so common?

Hermione is described as "the brightest witch of her age", so it seems intelligence is superior to blood, that alone would explain the animosity shown by the inbreeds.

The problems is that we don't know if bloodline determines anything. If it did, that would mean Hermione has to have a magical ancestor somewhere. And if that's the case, there's even less reason for the Hoity Toity to dislike her.

How common are squibs? If the bloodline determined magical ability, why are there squibs at all?

If Muggles are held in such disdain for any reason, why is Harry held up as some kind of hero or Ron not? One was raised by Muggles and showed no great intellect, yet is heralded as the Chosen One. The other is from a Pureblood family, yet shows no great intellect or magical ability.

Just more awful world-building by JKR, in my opinion. Too much contradicts or doesn't hold up to reasonable scrutiny.

The problems is that we don't know if bloodline determines anything. If it did, that would mean Hermione has to have a magical ancestor somewhere. And if that's the case, there's even less reason for the Hoity Toity to dislike her.

How common are squibs? If the bloodline determined magical ability, why are there squibs at all?

Think of it in terms of other genetic traits.

Take dwarfism for example. It's not common, but it is possible for two dwarf parents to produce a normal sized child.

Like wise, it is uncommon but possible for two normal size parents to produce a dwarf child.

The existence of either squibs or muggle born magic users don't by themselves disprove a genetic and therefore hereditary component.

To disprove a genetic components, you would need population level statistics showing one of or both of:

1. The odds of a pure blood paring producing a magical child is below 50%

2. The odds of a muggle couple producing a magical child is around the same as for a pure blood couple.

However, if 2 was true, unless the probability of a pure blood couple producing a magical child was very low, the number of magic users would have to be much higher than JKRs stories imply.

Also if that were true, maintaining the law of secrecy would be as you note, almost impossible.

And if 1 was low enough for 2 to be true while maintaining the relatively low numbers of magic users implied by JKR's books then the clear belief of many characters in those books of the existence of bloodlines becomes absurd.

All true, however, what we're talking about is effectively a normal sized person marrying a dwarf knowing that the chances of producing a dwarf child are increased dramatically. Who would do that when we're talking about your entire family line after that being at a higher risk of losing magical ability?

From what we can see in the HP Universe, neither squibs nor muggleborn can be very common. While we might not have specific data from a census to go by, we can infer from the nature of their society and the fact that the earth is populated by a billion Muggles.

Out of that billion, if being born with magical ability was just the whim of magic.... you'd expect the various magical schools to be overflowing with Muggleborn witches and wizards. Just the math of it shows that it can't be very common or they'd have to have battalions of "finders" always on the lookout for Muggle babies expressing accidental magic in their infancy, making First Contact, cleaning up any witnesses, etc. That'd be a huge infrastructure and would strain the Secrecy Act to the breaking point, imo.

All true, however, what we're talking about is effectively a normal sized person marrying a dwarf knowing that the chances of producing a dwarf child are increased dramatically. Who would do that when we're talking about your entire family line after that being at a higher risk of losing magical ability?

Exactly that with dwarf/normal couples has happened in real life. Why should wizards in JKR's universe be immune to the fickleness of love.

Because we're not just talking about "love". This is a world where there's a strong expectation of familiar obligation and you're not just risking depriving a child of height.

Can you imagine the guilt someone'd feel if they did something that deprived their child of something so wonderful and useful as magic? Egads! It might not be child abuse in the strictest sense, but it sure toes the line!

Bad enough that magic might decide to be fickle and skip over the kid, but to go through life knowing that you increased the odds of that happening by however many percentage points.... literally crippling your child and your entire family line.... that surely wouldn't feel good.

This is a world where there's a strong expectation of familiar obligation and you're not just risking depriving a child of height.

Sure, among certain families like the Malfoys, however, that would not apply universally across the wizarding community.

I don't know about that. Are witches so different from Muggle women that they don't try to "marry up"?

If we keep with the dwarfism analogy, it doesn't take much exploration to find that out of billions of humans on the earth, it is an exceedingly rare thing for a normal-height woman to fall in love with and marry a dwarf guy. While dwarfism is already rare as hen's teeth, the chances of finding a full-grown woman who desires that kind of match are sub-atomically small! Finding one example out of hundreds of millions of married couples only goes to show how incredible rare and unusual it'd be.

And, again, we're not just talking about your kid being abnormally short. Stripping them of magic would be a huge, crippling blow to the whole Family, and certainly borderline child abuse in that community. That's why producing a Squib even when you did everything right is seen as a sad thing -- not because Squibs are bad people, but because they'll never know the joy of welding magic and can't compete in the Magical World.

the chances of finding a full-grown woman who desires that kind of match are sub-atomically small!

Love is not rational or logical. There are lots of cases in real life of people falling in love with someone who wasn't "what they were looking for".

And, again, we're not just talking about your kid being abnormally short. Stripping them of magic would be a huge, crippling blow to the whole Family, and certainly borderline child abuse in that community.

And look at some of the other more sever hereditary disabilities out there.

The people who carry those traits still fall in love, get married and try to have kids.

People almost never go into that thinking about what's the worst thing that can happen. The go in hoping for the best.

Again, Yes, there would be a lot of family pressure against it in the aristocratic families that make up the ruling class in the wizarding world, like the Malfoys. However, I do not agree that it would even come close to translating out to the wider community with equal force.

Do not forget in US history, even at the height of Jim Crow and segregation, and despite enormous social pressure against it, inter-racial marriages still happened.

Ah, but who goes into a marriage knowing full well that their spouse has a condition that's hereditary and doesn't worry constantly about passing that disease on to their children? What percentage of couples is that out of the billions that exist in the world today? When you look at the numbers, you begin to see that it's not nearly as common as it seems.

The Wizarding community is far smaller and far better connected than the Muggle world simply because there are so few of them. Add in their aristocratic ways and that's a lot of pressure on a person.

When we're looking at a population of a billion people, finding a handful of inter-racial romances is a drop in the bucket and only illustrates the extreme rarity of that happening. 99% of couples stay inside their race and those that don't go in knowing that their child won't look like them. That's my whole point. If a Witch/Wizard were to marry a Muggle, there's a huge risk that the child will be a Squib. We're not talking 1% or 3% increase in squib-ness just because the other parent is magically-incapable.

Who would want to have a child when they know there's a 40% chance the child will be crippled simply because one of the parents is also crippled? Sure, I guess some would do it, but the Canon suggests that it's extremely rare and frowned upon for the reasons I've tried to show here. If it was a more common practice, you'd see far more children in the Wizarding Realm and far more Muggles active in that world as a result.

Just more awful world-building by JKR, in my opinion. Too much contradicts or doesn't hold up to reasonable scrutiny.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

The contradictions you have highlighted so far are a result of your apparent desire to assume an adulteress act that, in your opinion, occurred because it isn't specifically stated as NOT happening.

Next, whilst I feel no particular need to defend JKR, the world she created for HP revolves around certain people, events, and locations. Many others exist, a few are mentioned to a degree, you can't seriously condemn an author for not including every single person, place and event in the peripherals of the world they create, especially those that would only detract from the story.

Of course I'm entitled to my opinion. You, however, are not entitled to assume my "apparent desire" for anything. Just as I wouldn't impune your motives as based on some instinctual need to defend a fellow woman.

My comment regarding Hermione's lineage is as logically sound as any other, and I wasn't even the person who brought it up, tyvm.

JKR's world-building inability is quite well-known and discussed on a lot of the forums, so I can't take credit for inventing or discovering it. If you have a problem with that, take it up with JKR because she's the one who created a world filled with plot holes, logical inconsistencies, and open questions.

doesn't this then indicate that there would be a lot more Muggleborn witches and wizards?

That depends. Perhaps,, due to serious antipathy towards muggleborn nobody looks for the ones with potential, and only the most blindingly powerful ones get noticed. So there'd be many potential wizards/witches who never learn to control magic because nobody looked for them.

And it's pretty obvious that there'd be a LOT of mage descendents among muggles - unless every wizard was first taught magic to prevent accidental conception, I doubt they'd have no sex drive - so why wouldn't they look at muggle females as "good enough to fuck, but not good enough to stay with" (consider aristocrat attitudes about commoners, racist attitudes towards other ethnicities, etc.)?

That could be, but it would logically mean that Muggles would be far more familiar with magic than the Secrecy Act seems to allow for. You couldn't have millions of Muggle infants doing "accidental magic" when they were young and it not catch the attention of some. One of those kids would have to do something when a reporter was around, maybe even be the child of a journalist or get caught on a nanny-cam, etc. Just because they weren't "blindingly powerful" doesn't mean their spells wouldn't be seen at all. A spoon flying around the crib is pretty hard to miss.

If it was a real world, yes, I could see lots of sex magic being taught to young wizards and witches. With the hostility and disdain shown towards muggles, how could you not expect some Slytherins to take a weekend trip to Muggle London to have their way with the locals? Who wouldn't think it a gas to turn some Hollywood celebrity into their play toy for the weekend and then Obliviate her?

Even if it wasn't taught at Hogwarts doesn't mean it wouldn't be learned at home, passed down from older brother to younger, especially in the Dark families. We've all learned a great deal from friends when growing up, and spells involving sex would have been high on the list for growing wizards!

KR writing the story for children isn't really relevant, imo, because she went out of her way to write some very adult themes. Just because the story is aimed at children doesn't mean there shouldn't be some onus on the author to be consistent in their world-building and such. I never really thought the story was appropriate for younger children, personally, though maybe I'm just an old codger living in the past.

There's a divide between the first couple of books and the rest of the story. I'm not a huge fan of the first two books and particularly not of the first, yet they served her purposes. I think her world-building is sloppy partly because she was writing for tweens at first. It has some bad 'old-YA-fiction' issues; the kids are able to bypass defenses built to keep out experienced, crafty fully trained magic-users and handle problems the adults can't handle.

Once she shifted towards writing for teenagers and adults, things tighten up considerably and the stories get better and deeper. If she had it to do over again, I suspect a number of things would be more thought out.

I'd disagree that she's 'not a very good writer in general'. While we can pick holes in her world-building, she built a pretty amazing world that allows for all of that Fan Fiction in the first place. As much as I'll ding parts of the stories, she managed something pretty amazing. That's being a good writer. Not necessarily a great writer, but a good writer.

As she's a beacon of success to young women they want to ostracize her for Bad Think or make her knuckle under to the New Normal as a warning to others. The books will be targeted after that.

Sadly, I have to agree with you.

Which is rather funny when you consider how her success is almost entirely due to her playing the "woke" card early on. I remember interviews where she'd go on endlessly about having to fight the patriarchy to get published, how she had hundreds or thousands of rejections because she was a female writer (never produced a single shred of evidence) and finally had to start using her Initials to mask the fact that she was a girl if she wanted to get her story out there.

If you look at the quality of her books, they aren't any better than what you can find here on SOL, to be honest. What shut the professional critics up was her use of the "girl power" card. Any criticism was automatically labeled as sexist, so the professionals all made sure they touted her as the next Tolkien as loudly and publicly as possible. That got the masses interested, forced the media to give her positive coverage, etc. The "popularity" among customers was a fad that fed on itself, building steam as more and more kids demanded copies for themselves. But it was never actually good writing in the overall sense.

Harry Potter was the most remarkable marketing campaign I've ever seen. "I'm a single mom, rejected by everyone. Buy my book." Even the publisher was promoted as the poor but pluckly friend that stood by her when no one else would. Its a business, not a friend.
The books recycle common tropes such as the orphan boy who will be king (Arthur), the haunted castle (Tintagel), the wise old man who stands behind the boy (Merlin), etc. Mary Stewart did it better.

The only original bit was crossing the Arthurian story line with a tween girls detective series such as Nancy Drew or Trixie Belden and downgrading it to the level of Scooby Doo and those meddling kids, then as the characters aged trying to upgrade from Scooby Doo to John Le Carre.

A good analysis!

I still chuckle at the hate I got in the comment section of a new site when I asked for evidence to back up the claim they were making -- her being denied by publishers because she was female. I would have loved to have seen how those rejection letters were written!

"Dear JKR, we were overjoyed to receive your masterful manuscript. In the 100 years that we've been publishing books, never before have we seen something so perfectly written. Sadly, though, you're a chick and we just can't have that! While we're sure the book would make us millions in sales revenue, we firmly believe that writing is a business for men only and wouldn't dare to think of publishing something written by a feminine hand. That's just silly talk!"

Somehow, I'm not surprised that neither JKR nor any news outlet can actually produce such a letter. :-)

I will give props to the set designer for the movies. That was some truly gorgeous work, especially the Christmas decorating in the big hall.

I still chuckle at the hate I got in the comment section of a new site when I asked for evidence to back up the claim they were making -- her being denied by publishers because she was female. I would have loved to have seen how those rejection letters were written!

I always found that funny as if she was the only author to ever be rejected and that there are no female authors with a book published. Heck the public library in my county didn't even carry the Harry Potter novels until after the first movie came out because no one requested them do to few kids/young adults reading as they would rather play video games.

I always found that funny as if she was the only author to ever be rejected and that there are no female authors with a book published. Heck the public library in my county didn't even carry the Harry Potter novels until after the first movie came out because no one requested them do to few kids/young adults reading as they would rather play video games.

I think she was playing on history there. The more likely scenario is she had several rejections like many other would be authors. Only with her, once she had monetary success, she projected her own preconceptions on it.

Authors like Alice Mary Norton a.k.a. Andre Norton did in fact face rejection for being a women. She and others like her, made the publishers look like fools. They caused a shift in attitudes towards women. By the time JKR came around, it was not unusual for a female author to be published. That alone points to her postulation being bullshit.

I find it sad that rather than promoting a successful author who is published as an inspiration to others, people find more satisfaction in denigrating the author.

I have not read any Harry Potter as the subject matter holds no interest for me. I do know that JKR is published, exceedingly rich from her writing and an inspiration to others. I also know she is under currently under attack for some of her views on sexuality. If being published and an inspiration to others is the requisite that puts a person above review, reproach or questioning, I wholeheartedly apologize for my less than stellar thoughts and opinions on Adolph H, Mao, Marx, Chomsky and Nussbaum.

JKR claims that she was passed over for publication simply because she was female. That claim does a great disservice to Austen, the Brontes, Le Guin, Atwood and the many fine female published writers that preceded her and inspired others. What we do know is that JKR and the Harry Potter series is a master of marketing. JKR is now being vilified by the very culture she appealed to in that marketing.

It is particularly pathetic to do so on a forum for amateur and aspiring authors.

Since almost all readers are amateurs and a very few are aspiring authors, I suppose from your statement that they're not entitled to opinions since they're not published and haven't inspired others. In today's world a contrary opinion is summarily viewed as denigrating and defamatory. The contrarians are simply viewed as both sad and pathetic. They are considered unenlightened, racist and misogynistic by many others and categorically dismissed. Just those accusations in the current culture is a stop sign that invalidates all.
This forum is simply another outlet and expression form for opinions. And, you know the saying about opinions... mine included.

For accuracy you ought to remove the two spurious paragraphs included by you when you quoted me.

Then again, when you say, "almost all readers are amateurs", did you mean writers, or are you suggesting that most SoL readers are semi-literate?

Obviously you feel that the only response to my post was to drag in buzz words like unenlightened, racist and misogynistic, rather than accept that a little common decency isn't too much to ask.

Of course you are entirely correct about your opinion.

misogynistic

How can you be mysoginistic?
I suppose you could hate yourself...

How can you be mysoginistic?

I have absolutely no idea. Much like the poster who brought it up...

:)

You demand "a little common decency" from others, yet show none yourself.

My apology for the quote mishap. I have rarely responded in a forum and am not the most techno enlightened. When I realized the problem, I couldn't figure out how to fix it and won't even try to attempt to do so.
That being said, the use of "buzz words" was in response to your word usage and implication that those who question JKR's writing do so because she's a female. Since she's successful, published and an inspiration, she shouldn't be questioned by the likes of those on SOL.
To equate my statement that most readers are amateur, i.e. not published or aspiring writers, and therefore semi-literate is pure sophistry.
I was railing against the current culture of negating anyone who has different opinions and their characterization as sad, pathetic (your words) and not of import. I tried to respond completely to your post, and you pick and choose a phrase. Typical of the parsing that is present in today's culture.
Be happy and content, Joy R, you have "cancelled" me. I'm shamed that I don't worship at the altar of your opinions. And yes, Madnige, I did misspell mysoginistic, the horror of it all.

More knee-jerk emotional outbursts? Really?

What's pathetic is you ignoring facts and attacking people for expressing an opinion on a forum that's expressly about expressing opinions. JKR doesn't need you to defend her. She's wealthy beyond your imagining and will never see your noble stand in her favor. Other authors, though, might see these critiques and take pause to assess their stories.

To clarify, can you point to a place in this thread where anyone found "satisfaction in denigrating" anyone? You're the only one actually hurling insults and personal attacks, so it seems if anyone is finding satisfaction in denigrating people, it'd be you.

It is a known fact that JKR's world-building was lousy. That's why there are a ton of holes in the plot. How is it bad to say that she lacked something in her writing? Does the popularity of the story somehow excuse her from what non-successful authors are told to do?