|
|
Post by Shinko on Aug 21, 2016 16:44:14 GMT -5
Since Cursed Child came out, I've on impulse been re-reading Sorcerer's Stone. Yeah, it's been nearly a month and the book is not all that long, but unlike previous times where I would literally devour a Harry Potter book super fast, this time I've been reading through more slowly and analytically. A lot of people were kind of disappointed in Cursed Child, and while I can understand why I was curious to see how much of that was nostalgia goggles and how much was the original series being legitimately that good by comparison.
So I had the idea that, as I finish each novel, I'd do a retrospective review of said novel and analyze it from an adult perspective, as someone who has read through each book in the series at least five times before, but hasn't touched them in almost six years now.
If I were to do a project like this, would anybody else be interested in reading through my reviews? Maybe contributing to a dialogue about each book as I get through it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Aug 21, 2016 16:57:58 GMT -5
That sounds like a really cool idea, and I'd at least be interested in reading it/giving some insight  It's been a while since I've read any of the books too (haven't read Cursed Child yet), so this might be a good prompting to look back on childhood nostalgia and see how well it holds up now. |
|
|
|
Post by Reiqua on Aug 21, 2016 17:13:00 GMT -5
I'm likewise re-reading the Harry Potters - but slowly, as you said. I've recently finished Goblet of Fire, and just starting Order of the Phoenix. (Personally, I probably think they hold up XD) I'd definitely be engaging with your reviews provided I had the time (though tbh, it sounds like the perfect procrastination crutch, so I'm likely to have time for that). Just a curiosity, how much do you anticipate this would entail comparisons to Cursed Child? Or would you analyse each in its own right? Or somewhere in between? (Also, just an aside, it's so weird being able to write 'analyse' when you're not on the neoboards without it being a forbidden word XP) |
|
|
|
Post by Shinko on Aug 21, 2016 17:53:46 GMT -5
I'd say in all likelihood it'd be less comparing directly to Cursed Child and more using the backlash of Cursed Child as a focal point to examine the original books. Looking at character development and plot direction and whatnot- things that Cursed Child kind of got panned for, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reiqua on Aug 21, 2016 18:04:44 GMT -5
Sounds good then  (As an aside: to those who like to hate on Cursed Child, I think that of all the things to criticise it for, character development is a rather unfair pick. Especially for those of us who don't live in London and can only skim read the script rather than see how the actors actually develop their own characters  ) But yes, looking at the original books using the same measuring rod that people seem to have been using for Cursed Child would be an interesting exercise, I reckon. |
|
|
|
Post by Coaster on Aug 22, 2016 12:08:30 GMT -5
I had pretty much no exposure to Harry Potter before this year, and then read all 7 and Cursed Child for the first time in the span of a couple months, and I still think Cursed Child falls flat compared to the main series. <_< Although I see what people here mean, a lot of that could be the format as well.
I would definitely be interested in reading your retrospective reviews, though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Shinko on Aug 26, 2016 1:54:20 GMT -5
I've only a chapter left of Sorcerer's Stone, but while reading it tonight I bumped into something that amused me enough to inspire something I'll be doing as I read through the books from now on. The Fun Forshadowing Corner! Spoilers for... Basically the entire series, you've been warned. "Firenze saved me, but he shouldn't have done so... Bane was furious... He was talking about interfering with what the planets say is going to happen... They must show that Voldemort's coming back... Bane thinks Firenze should have let Voldemort kill me... I suppose that's written in the stars as well..." -Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Pg. 260 ... Absolutely accurate on all counts, although it doesn't happen as soon as the centaurs think it will. |
|
|
|
Post by Shinko on Sept 2, 2016 2:55:45 GMT -5
Alright folks: I’ve finished Sorcerer's Stone, and as promised I’m going to do a review of it now; this will likely turn into quite the essay, so in an effort to curb my text walling at least moderately and keep you poor folks from having to sit down and read too much in one sitting, I’m going to divide each review into three subsections, each to be posted on a different day. The subsections will be as follows; - Plot and Themes - A very brief plot summary, then an analysis of the plot as well as of the way the book addresses overarching themes within the Harry Potter series as a whole. These themes being Death, Love, Choice and Racism.
- Characters - A look at the most important characters in the series, as well as any characters of particular significance in that particular book.
- Technical Stuff - Pacing, continuity, use of language, etc. Probably the least interesting part of the reviews unless you like me have a particular interest in literature and how it is constructed.
That having been said, keep in mind that each review is, with the exception of discussions of the overarching themes, going to be handled as if I have not read the rest of the series yet. Ergo, any plot holes or continuity snags I may make note of, or conversely anything I see that makes me go “Oooooooh” in retrospect, won’t be addressed until I get to the book later on in the series where that bit becomes relevant. Simple reason for this, I don’t feel it’s fair to judge a book for continuity of things that, at the time the book was published, were not yet errors. Alright, so- no more putting it off, it is time to discuss the plot and themes of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This is your only warning here, elements of the entire series are gong to come up, and I am not holding back on spoilers.Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone: Plot and Themes The story begins by giving focus to a family introduced to us as the “Dursleys,” who are set up as being a fairly normal British family living in a fairly normal British suburb- but with relatives known as the “Potters” who are abnormal in an unspecified way. We find out that Lily and James Potter have been murdered by someone very much feared by these characters, someone known as Voldemort. However, the Potters’ son Harry mysteriously survives with nothing but a scar, and Voldemort has vanished utterly. Harry is given to the Dursleys to raise until he is eleven, at which point he finds out from a giant of a man called Hagrid that he- like his parents- is a wizard. This initial setup is fairly divorced from the plot that would take focus once Harry went to Hogwarts- a boarding school for witches and wizards which would remain the main setting for the majority of the series. These early chapters are primarily used to set up the world in which our story takes place, and the absolute secrecy of the wizards within it, to the point that the words “wizard, witch,” and “magic” aren’t spoken at all until Hagrid declares Harry to be a wizard. Instead characters simply refer to “us” and “our world” when speaking of wizards. (Although humorously enough the word “muggle” comes up quite a few times, just with no context to explain what it means. Thematically fitting.) From the ordinary world not dissimilar to our own, we along with Harry take a trip to a wizard mega-mall of sorts, Diagon Alley, metaphorically stepping into into the world of magic and discovering it through Harry. With a world as deep and nuanced as the series would eventually become, this long, slow dive into the world isn’t just good, it’s vital, as otherwise you’d have too many new ideas being shoved at the reader at the same time they’re trying to figure out who the characters are and parse out the plot. Speaking of that plot, it gets its first inklings when Hagrid picks up a mysterious package from the wizard bank, Gringotts, and refuses to explain what it is. Do I smell an obvious plot token that’ll be relevant later? I think I do! But the story is quick to distract you from it in favor of Harry’s continued fish out of water exploration of the wizard society until, a little bit after arriving at the aforementioned wizard school Harry reads in the newspaper that one of the Gringotts vaults was broken into. He speculates that this vault might have been the one with the small package, since the break-in only failed because the vault had been emptied “earlier that same day”- the day he and Hagrid had travelled to Diagon Alley. Harry, along with his fellow students Ron and Hermione, eventually realize that the object, whatever it is, is behind hidden within the school, under a trapdoor that is being guarded by a three headed dog. When a troll somehow gets into the school on Halloween, and one of the school teachers Professor Snape turns up afterwards with a mauled leg, the kids begin to suspect that Snape means to steal the hidden package. If it feels like I’m glossing a lot here, it’s only because the story itself is fairly… laser focused on this main plot, unlike later books in the series which would get a lot more wordy and have a ton of subplots. The book fairly reliably hits plot point after plot point after plot point with very little padding out. I’ll discuss the pros and cons of this more in the technical analysis later on. Eventually, through a convoluted series of events- and the bumbling of Hagrid, who seems to have such a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth that one must seriously question Dumbledore’s decision to trust the guy with such important secrets- Harry, Ron and Hermione discover that the the object the dog is guarding is the Philosopher's Sorcerer’s Stone. (I will be discussing the translation wut here in the technical analysis too, don’t worry). The stone is an object with the ability to turn lead into gold, and produce the Elixir of Life, a drink which will make anybody that consumes it immortal. They also learn from a centaur prophet in the forest near the school that Snape isn’t acting on his own- he’s trying to steal the stone for the man who killed Harry’s parents, the long missing dark wizard Voldemort. Eventually the kids, who can’t get any of the adults to take them seriously when they try to insist the stone is in danger, are forced to brave the three headed dog, and the spells beyond it, in order to retrieve the stone before Snape can make off with it. Once Harry (losing Ron and Hermione in the process) reaches the chamber where the stone is hidden, however, he discovers that his enemy is not Professor Snape, but another man entirely- Professor Quirrell. (This may seem a little late in the review to bring up what is essentially our main antagonist for the first time, but there’s a reason for my doing it this way which will be explained when I discuss Quirrell’s character in part two.) Quirrell reveals that he is in fact possessed by the disembodied soul of Voldemort, who’s face appears on the back of Quirrell’s head. Voldemort figures out that Harry is the key to them finding the stone, and once Harry does acquire it, Voldemort tries to tempt Harry with promises to spare his life if he cooperates. It is here that we should probably address the first and most important of the themes in the Harry Potter series. Death Voldemort offering not to kill Harry here seems a fairly straightforward and cliche thing for him to do as a villain. “Give me the MacGuffin and I will spare your life.” However, it is far more important than one would assume at first glance because, as we’ll later find out, death is the thing that Voldemort fears above anything else. His most noteworthy motivation as a character is his eternal pursuit of immortality. So in offering not to kill Harry, Voldemort is presenting our hero with the thing that would tempt Voldemort the most if their situations had been reversed. However, Harry knows that allowing Voldemort to be revived would bring catastrophic pain and suffering down on the world. And earlier in the book, during a conversation with the centaurs in which it is explained that drinking unicorn blood will save you from death, but leave you with “a half-life; a cursed life.” as punishment for your selfishness, he says something very profound. “If you’re going to be cursed forever, death’s better isn’t it?” This, right here in the very first book, is a perfect summation of the thematic conflict between Voldemort and Harry. Selfishness versus selflessness. Willingness to accept your own fate versus willingness to destroy anything and everything in your way to defy that fate. The battle against death always comes with a price. Even the Elixir of Life is, in effect, an addictive drug. You have to keep drinking it regularly if you want to stay alive. You are dependant on this substance for your very survival, and initially this is why the stone sticks around in spite of the danger it poses- because it’s creator Nicholas Flamel and his wife, both over six hundred, need to stone to stay alive. However, once Quirrell is defeated, the Hogwarts headmaster Dumbledore and Flamel have a conversation about it, in which they agree that it is for the best that the stone be destroyed, lest Voldemort again try to use it to return to power. Flamel choses selflessness, consigning himself and his wife to die, in order to delay the dark lord’s resurrection. Some would argue that this is an extremely heavy theme to include in a children’s book. But as the books will argue, death is part of life. It isn’t something that should be feared, but that you should try to understand and accept. Enjoy your life while you have it, love unconditionally, and accept the end with grace and dignity when your time comes. Which brings us to our second theme... Love So, about defeating Quirrell. How does Harry, an eleven year old who at this point doesn’t know any spells more dangerous than wingardium leviosa manage that trick? As soon as Quirrell tries to touch Harry to kill him, his hands begin to burn. Quirrell literally cannot touch Harry, and once our hero picks up on this, he forced himself on the evil professor and literally kills him by forcing his hands onto Quirrell’s face and hanging on for dear life. When Harry later questions how this happened, Dumbledore explains that it is because of Harry’s mother. Voldemort had earlier casually stated “but your mother needn’t have died… she was trying to protect you.” (Needn’t have died, hey lookit that foreshadowing!) Dumbledore explains that, in dying to protect Harry’s life, his mother left a very powerful protective enchantment on Harry, so that nothing evil could touch him. It is interesting to note something from, of all things, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. In that book, at the climax the main antagonist asks “You think you’re stronger than me?” and Harry retorts- “No. I’m not. But we are. I’ve never fought alone, you see. And I never will.” After which point Harry’s friends flood into the scene to back him up. This is a recurring theme throughout the majority of the books- at the climax Harry is alone, despairing, and seems outmatched. But then his faith in his friends and loved ones turns the tide, and sees him through to victory. Love after all doesn’t have to be romantic. The love of parents, siblings, friends, mentors, all of it is just as valid and potent as the love between romantic partners. And in this case, Harry is protected by the spiritual presence of his mother’s love, which lingers with him thanks to her self-sacrifice. Though she chose death, she lives on through her son, who carries her love in every step he takes, every beat of his heart, every breath in his lungs. He is alive because she chose death. Lily could have chosen to abandon them and live on, but she would have had to do so with the guilt of knowing she consigned her son to die. “A half life; a cursed life.” And she knew; death was better. Choice Lily’s decision is just one of many important choices that characters in the book have to make- some obvious, others more subtext that I’ll bring up in later books where they become relevant, but all of them leading to an undercurrent setting up what will become a much bigger plot element moving forward; it is not what you can do or how people perceive you that matters. It is your choices that determine who you are. The first big, obvious decision Harry has to make is in the form of his sorting ceremony. In Hogwarts students are “sorted” into four houses based on personality and talent. Gryffindor is the house associated with courage and daring, Ravenclaw with intelligence, Hufflepuff with loyalty and hard work, and Slytherin with power and ambition. Slytherin however, is also associated with producing a lot of dark wizards, since ambition is often the seed of duplicity. Harry has tremendous potential as a wizard, something the magical “sorting hat” recognizes in him, and the hat considers sorting Harry into Slytherin. However, and this will come up again in his character section, Harry is something that Slytherins by and large are not- he’s humble. He doesn’t want power, or fame, or glory. He doesn’t want to be great at any cost. And so, knowing only what he’s heard about the house second hand, Harry begs the hat not to put him into Slytherin. Choosing to reject the temptation of darkness, Harry’s courage sees that he is then sorted into Gryffindor instead. This is a short scene, but it is used to great effect, and will ripple tremendously into Chamber of Secrets later. And to wrap things up... Racism Although it is briefly touched upon in occasional character banter about being from pureblood families, or deriding “muggles,” racism is mostly downplayed and not a major plot element in this first entry in the series. Don’t worry though, we’ll have a lot more to say on this topic come Chamber of Secrets. And that’s it that! Stay tuned for the character section of the review coming tomorrow, as I take off my rose colored glasses and get a bit more critical. And feel free to let me know what you think so far! |
|
|
|
Post by Reiqua on Sept 2, 2016 5:44:39 GMT -5
Ooft, I'm also slowly re-reading the Harry Potters, just for enjoyment. But I started a good bit earlier than you, Shinko, and am already just starting “The Half Blood Prince” which makes “The Philosopher's* Stone” a somewhat distant memory, so I'll be working from not-super-fresh memory here... (*I'm not American, so I didn't read the American “Sorcerer's Stone” version and don't see any particular argument why I should use the term “Sorcerer's” over “Philosopher's”, so I'm just gonna continue as I am.) Plot:Funny you should mention this – in my recent re-readings, I've been increasingly noticing that the before school section each book goes on a lot longer than I'd realised. I'll often feel like I'm a quarter to a third of my way through the book before Harry's done with his trips to Diagon Alley, the Burrow, the Quidditch World Cup or whatever else and finally gets back to Hogwarts. I can totally see myself singing “Gotta get back to Hogwarts” with Darren Criss Interesting point that the “long, slow dive into the [wizarding] world” is so vital. I suppose it is! I've never been one to analyse what the author is doing as I read, cos that's not the way I generally enjoy a story (Though I'd probably be a better writer if I did pay attention to that kind of detail from time to time!) Curious. I'll be interested to see what you bring up on this front later on. I'm actually having trouble thinking of many things (off the top of my head) that would count as subplots. Though I guess the main plots get more convoluted and less... linear, is that a word for it? A question: What do you think of the setup for the three kids having to be the ones to save the stone from Voldemort? Is it well enough done? Do you feel it's well enough set up to believable that no-one but a bunch of eleven year olds will stand between Voldemort and immortality? (And if this is not touching too much on Cursed Child territory – and I understand completely if it is) Do you think some of the seemingly random “but there was no other way” moments in Cursed Child would be better developed and make more sense when seen on stage rather than reading the book? Not that we can discuss that particularly intelligently, with neither of us living in England and thus having the chance to see the play xP Voldemort's “eternal pursuit of immortality” – nice word choice, Shinko Or are you trying to make some implications about actions of that crying rag-clad baby in Harry's vision of King's Cross“If you’re going to be cursed forever, death’s better isn’t it?” Curious that JK Rowling chose to have these words uttered by an eleven year old kid. I guess it shows that she thinks it's such a simple truth for a child to grasp. And by extension, exactly how twisted Voldemort is for his firm denial of this simple truth. I have siblings of about eleven years. They sometimes utter complete nonsense about llamas and cheese and other such things, and at other times they say simple truths about their view on the world which can sometimes be very poignant (especially about politics and theology!) It fits beautifully with the theme, yes, but I can't help wondering how realistic it is. Flamel has chosen to cling to life for over 600 years, sharing the Elixir of Life with none but his wife. And now we're asked to believe that he selflessly decides to finish clinging to life – just on the off chance that Voldemort might decide to have a second go at the stone.  Rowling really does go in for a mostly black and white view of characters doesn't she? You're either selfish (in which case you're Voldemort or one of his death eaters) or you're not, in which case you're a normal person. But I imagine this is more relevant to your 'character' section, so I'll leave that thought for now. Yes, JK Rowling does tend to come back to the “Love is more powerful than magic” concept a lot, doesn't she? In fact, she doesn't seem to think magic is that great at all. She seems to argue that magic creates just as many problems as it solves. And there are a whole bunch of things she places in the hierarchy above magic. Including knowledge, death and time, and of course love. (Also, she seems to have given each of them a room in the Department of Mysteries). And tangentially, given that food is an exception to Gamp's law of elemental transfiguration, I wonder if food holds a unique position in Rowling's eyes? I'd laugh so hard if there were a 'food room' in the Department of Mysteries. But I digress. As I was saying, it's interesting that love is so much stronger than magic that it's on a completely different scale. And Voldemort's just not good at thinking outside the box. He's just intent on progressing higher than anyone else on the magic scale. (Not a profound observation when written out, I know, but it made a little more sense in my head ) I don't have too much to say on Choice, except a thing I noticed when reading through Goblet of Fire. So I'll save it for when you get to Goblet of Fire (Provided I remember, of course) Mmh, as you say, not much on the topic of racism coming up in this book (unless one counts the Dursleys' view of wizards ). I wonder if you think the broader term 'intolerance' might work for this theme? Some of the discrimination that I can see the Harry Potter books addressing isn't really racially based, unless one considers 'race' as a somewhat looser term...? I'll look forward to your "Character" section tomorrow |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Wolf-Park on Sept 2, 2016 11:54:13 GMT -5
Reiqua- There's not much difference between Sorcerer's Stone and Philosopher's Stone as both books are exactly the same, plot wise, only a word change, which Shinko will explain later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shinko on Sept 2, 2016 13:08:31 GMT -5
(*I'm not American, so I didn't read the American “Sorcerer's Stone” version and don't see any particular argument why I should use the term “Sorcerer's” over “Philosopher's”, so I'm just gonna continue as I am.) What Ian said. =) Plot:Funny you should mention this – in my recent re-readings, I've been increasingly noticing that the before school section each book goes on a lot longer than I'd realised. I'll often feel like I'm a quarter to a third of my way through the book before Harry's done with his trips to Diagon Alley, the Burrow, the Quidditch World Cup or whatever else and finally gets back to Hogwarts. I can totally see myself singing “Gotta get back to Hogwarts” with Darren Criss Something I will discuss once we get to that part of the series. ;3 A question: What do you think of the setup for the three kids having to be the ones to save the stone from Voldemort? Is it well enough done? Do you feel it's well enough set up to believable that no-one but a bunch of eleven year olds will stand between Voldemort and immortality?
(And if this is not touching too much on Cursed Child territory – and I understand completely if it is) Do you think some of the seemingly random “but there was no other way” moments in Cursed Child would be better developed and make more sense when seen on stage rather than reading the book? Not that we can discuss that particularly intelligently, with neither of us living in England and thus having the chance to see the play xP
I think the main crux point here is that the kids have got their theories all wrong, and thus when they try to explain their concerns they get waved off. They think the enemy is Snape- someone who, for reasons not revealed until the climax of the last dang book, Dumbledore trusts utterly and vouches for over and over and over. So when they say "SNAPE'S GOING TO DO THE EVULZ" nobody listens. Also worth noting is that Snape was trying to stop Quirrell too- he noticed something was fishy and was keeping an eye on the guy. He just didn't necessarily realize that Quirrell was in cahoots with Voldemort in trying to steal the stone.
That having been said, yeah the "but thou must" element is somewhat forced here. I'll get into it more when I discuss characters- specifically Quirrell's character- but suffice it to say later books in the series did a way better job of explaining how and why things escalated to the point where Harry was the only one to act.
Could you clarify the cursed child question though, I'm not sure what specific "moments" you mean. Death:It fits beautifully with the theme, yes, but I can't help wondering how realistic it is. Flamel has chosen to cling to life for over 600 years, sharing the Elixir of Life with none but his wife. And now we're asked to believe that he selflessly decides to finish clinging to life – just on the off chance that Voldemort might decide to have a second go at the stone. Rowling really does go in for a mostly black and white view of characters doesn't she? You're either selfish (in which case you're Voldemort or one of his death eaters) or you're not, in which case you're a normal person. But I imagine this is more relevant to your 'character' section, so I'll leave that thought for now. Bear in mind we don't actually get any context for what sort of person Flamel is, or what sort of conversation he had with Dumbledore. Yes, Dumbledore implies Flamel accepted the decision to destroy the stone relatively reasonably and that someone as old as him sees death as "the next big adventure" but uh, Dumbledore is talking to an eleven year old. One who he later in the same scene refuses to tell about his own prophesied destiny because "too young." I don't think it's out of the question there was more going on there we don't know about because Harry accepted Dumbledore's words at face value- something Harry would continue to do until in multiple later books until he realized Dumbledore was human and flawed and as much capable of making mistakes as anybody. And as the series will make clear, Dumbledore is Master of Withholding Vital Information and has shades of Lying Liar who Lies if he thinks it's for "the greater good."
Because no, I would profoundly disagree with the series playing it's characters black and white. The series seems that way at the outset, but it gets more complicated and grey as things progress, and for good reason; at the beginning, the cast of the story is a bunch of children. And yes, while children can be much wiser than given credit for, children tend to see the world as black and white. Fair and unfair. It takes a lot of maturing for them to realize things are more complicated than that, and to see those shades of grey. Which yes, I will get into more in the character section. Love:Yes, JK Rowling does tend to come back to the “Love is more powerful than magic” concept a lot, doesn't she? In fact, she doesn't seem to think magic is that great at all. She seems to argue that magic creates just as many problems as it solves. And there are a whole bunch of things she places in the hierarchy above magic. Including knowledge, death and time, and of course love. (Also, she seems to have given each of them a room in the Department of Mysteries). And tangentially, given that food is an exception to Gamp's law of elemental transfiguration, I wonder if food holds a unique position in Rowling's eyes? I'd laugh so hard if there were a 'food room' in the Department of Mysteries. But I digress. As I was saying, it's interesting that love is so much stronger than magic that it's on a completely different scale. And Voldemort's just not good at thinking outside the box. He's just intent on progressing higher than anyone else on the magic scale. (Not a profound observation when written out, I know, but it made a little more sense in my head ) It's worth noting that magic, for all that it is powerful, is inherently mortal. It's not inherently human, since we see a lot of non-humans who can use it, but all of those non-humans are equally as flawed and fallible as our human cast in their own ways. I feel like that's what Rowling is getting at by making so many forces more powerful than magic- showing that it is not a force which elevates it's practitioners to a level above non-magical folk, but just an inborn ability like any other- one with limitations. Pottermore and Tales of Beetle the Bard get into a bit of the history of the Potterverse and reveal that once upon a time wizards and muggles lived together fairly harmoniously (until y'know, inquisitions and witch burning became a very prevalent thing). So on that level, we get a contextualization that the wizards aren't really so different form muggles- it's just that centuries of isolation have led them to believe they are. Racism:Mmh, as you say, not much on the topic of racism coming up in this book (unless one counts the Dursleys' view of wizards ). I wonder if you think the broader term 'intolerance' might work for this theme? Some of the discrimination that I can see the Harry Potter books addressing isn't really racially based, unless one considers 'race' as a somewhat looser term...? Ah! Yes "intolerance" probably is a much better word. I was trying to think of a way to phrase it and that was the best my brain was spitting out, ahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by Moni on Sept 2, 2016 15:04:44 GMT -5
Not being much of a Potter fan and only having read the books once, I can basically contribute nothing to the discussion except that I know when I was a kid the whole Sorcerer's/philosopher's stone thing really grinded my gears. I read sorcerer's stone first, and I thought philosopher's stone was a completely different book ("Oh! There's a sorcerer's AND philosopher's stone??? Neat!") Only to discover that the only difference between the two is the name swap and a few edited British-isms. (Americanese, in fact, is one of the best languages on earth (insert USA chant here), so I have to give the edge to Sorcerer's Stone.) re: the racism thing I think racism is a closer word than y'all might think--the whole pureblood/mudblood/halfblood thing definitely has echoes of race theory in it in its language and deeper meaning. Race used to be viewed as some innate biological/innate difference all with its own field in contemporary science at the time. (Some white nationalists still insist that race is like this. For the record, any biological or innate differences between the "races" bollocks and has been throughly thrashed. "race" means a sub-species, but homo sapien does not have subspecies and there are no reliable genetic differences between the races. It's all a social construct whose history goes back to the Age of Exploration and the construction of white and European identity.) But anyway, the through was that all this was transmitted by blood. Children of native Americans/Whites, for example, used to be called "half-breeds" (no really), and ofc in the old south if you had one "drop of black blood" in your body, you were considered "black.
It all is very reminiscient of the parlay between purebloods/halfbloods/mudbloods, take that as you will. |
|
|
|
Post by Reiqua on Sept 2, 2016 17:40:49 GMT -5
Shinko Ian Wolf-Park Sorry if I didn't make myself clear! So far as I'm aware, the only difference between the version called "Philosopher's Stone" and "Sorcerer's Stone" is just that - the name of the stone. I only meant to say that I'm planning to continue calling it by the name I'm used to even though Shinko's calling it "Sorcerer's Stone" as she's used to Moni I definitely agree those things you were mentioning could all fall under racism. I was thinking more specifically of things like attitudes to Lupin's lycanthropy, which JK Rowling has said is meant to parallel attitudes to people with HIV/AIDS, which would probably also come under the banner "intolerance". Though, I guess Umbridge does refer to werewolves as half breeds so maybe racism kinda covers that one too....? Also Moni, I'm afraid I don't speak Americanese - Only 'strine. But maybe we could use French as a lingua franca? Shinko On Cursed Child:Perhaps '"but there was no other way" moments' was the wrong term to describe them. More just things that made me go "huh, why?" Like, why try and dock points from Cedric in the first task to stop him being killed? There are probably a bajillion other ways to do it (but I guess they would have had equally big repercussions on time). Or stopping Delphi by transfiguring Harry into Voldemort? Really? On Black and White Characters:I do think JK Rowling does go to some effort to put black spots on white characters (especially Dumbledore), and white spots on black characters as the series goes on. But at the moment, most of the characters I can think of remain staunchly black or white, but spotted to various degrees. Only a few exceptions come to mind, characters whom I'd be willing to call 'grey'. People like Grindlewald, Draco Malfoy and Barty Crouch Senior. I'm interested to hear your take on these things, though - I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I think the view I'm trying to convey is that characters are innately selfless or selfish, and actions are innately selfless or selfish. Selfless characters can make selfish actions sometimes, but it doesn't change the fact that they're innately selfless. And selfish characters can make selfless actions, but their character is still innately selfish. But as I say, that's my current view and I'm willing to be open-minded about it On "Magic is Might":Definitely agree On that note, I guess in the Potterverse we see that intolerance begets intolerance. It was the Muggles' witch burning in the first place that led to the pureblood snobbery we see in Harry's time. So maybe the Dursleys' intolerance of magic is quite relevant to the theme after all!
|
|
|
|
Post by Shinko on Sept 2, 2016 19:09:16 GMT -5
Reiqua Aaaah, well I'll talk more about plot holes and such in Cursed Child when I get to Cursed Child, but to address those specific points; in the former I'd imagine it's a case of trying to do the least dangerous thing. If he never gets the head start in the maze, he won't catch up to Harry and they won't tie for the cup. They could go more direct routes but those are potentially more dangerous. And in the case of transfiguring Harry into Voldy, I'd say that's less "there's no other way" and more "we are short on time, we don't have the luxury of deliberation." For the characters, I'll save my specific arguments there for the character sections. However I am somewhat confused by the assertion that if a character is not selfish, they are not morally grey. Selfishness is a flaw, to be sure, but it is not the only one. Some of the most morally atrocious crimes in history have been made with the best of intentions. If selfishness were the only character flaw that existed in the franchise, it would have a rather boring, samey set of characters. Moni Except the wizards aren't just biased against muggleborns and halfbloods. They're also biased against centaurs, house elves, goblins, giants, and a boatload of other sentient creatures in the 'verse. This isn't s'much racism as... species-ism? Which is why I agreed intolerance might be a better word for the overarching theme in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Moni on Sept 2, 2016 19:28:12 GMT -5
Shinko Racism fits the bill for some of it, which was my main point. *shrug*
|
|
It's been a while since I've read any of the books too (haven't read Cursed Child yet), so this might be a good prompting to look back on childhood nostalgia and see how well it holds up now. 
Quintessential
)
