Yet they "defied", which I perceive as escaping Voldemort and his death eaters, three times. To escape Voldemort himself is not an easy task. No matter how easy Harry makes it seem.

Plus, I'd guess that at times of peril and war, Auror Academy has lowered standards and training time.

 

Oh my Old Ones.

This is why we can't have nice things. Why does every fucking thread eventually turn into this.

Ichor, look up one of the other threads that this has happened in, and spare yourself the time that would be wasted arguing. You can feel like you're arguing though, because they'll be using the exact same points.

 

Another reason why I did not want to get into/start a debate/argument: it's all been done to death before.

 

Not to piss on anyone's parade or anything, but HP is a children/youngteen series. Strippers with daddy issues, angry dads, horny divorce lawyers and MILFs don't go that well with young, sensitive minds.

 

Lies. All of them lies.

 

I don't think the wizards fear muggles. A first year can incapacitate anyone with just a jelly legs jinx, which I'm sure most can do by the end of the first year at Hogwarts. The fact that the statue of secrecy went up in around the 17th century, when the weapons were piss poor at that implys there was another reason without getting into the .50 calibre bullets/nukes ect. I remember an something about a wizard/witch who intentionally got caught to get set on fire which proves they weren't scared of them.

And on the defied three times; who said it had to be in a battle? Voldemort was said to have tried to recruit them, just by saying no can be taken as a defiance. I doubt he would kill potential recruits just for saying no once, he would give them a chance or try and lure them to him.

 

/utterly ends all Wizard vs. Muggle debate

It's been done and redone. Each time new members (including me at one point) deign that they know that either side is superior.

Remember kiddies, JKR was not a writer that fills in all the gaps. It was what made books six and seven such let downs, but it was also what makes the fanfiction potential large enough that most of us have been reading it for at least half a dozen years now. Every theory we come up with is simply conjecture, and that's not going to change.

No one knows how a shield charm works, and that's because no one knows how magic works. Harry in the first book says that he thought magic was just wand waving and saying a few magics words. He goes on to say that's not the case.

I think we could make the case that in the book, for the larger portion, that's all magic really is.

 

Awesome point Heir. In the books, magic is just a tool for the plot, its very obvious JKR never actually planned out a real magic system. As you said, this gives a lot of leeway for fanfiction. She does this with a ton of things, and its because of the progression of the books.
With the first book, its all childish adventure and the bonds of friendship. By DH they're confronting death, loss and other 'adult' issues. Because of that, you get a lot of things from the first couple of books making little sense with some of the other book's backstory.
When JKR changed the tone so much, she alienated half of her readers, but she also changed the options for fanfiction. With the introduction of the Aurors as a sort of catch-all armed forces you get a lot of heavy themes that go with that (eg. PTSD, torture etc.).
Aurors are an easy way to make a story serious or add fight scenes, or accomplish other stuff that the HP world doesn't really do. Want to have fight scenes? You need some Auror training. Want a badass character? They can be Aurors. Heavy or Dark style? Bring in some Auror shit. Its a convenient plot device for instant-just-add-awesome for light-side stories. The reason its a cliche is because some authors use them as a stock 'this guys cool' background.

 

Ah, but in another example of Rowling's simplified world, Blaise was a Slytherin, so we can assume his mother was as well (seeing as houses have a strong tendency to run in the family). Despite all of the sunshine blown up the readers' asses about how your house doesn't decide who you are or whether you're good or evil, Slytherins consistently act like evil bastards.

So, if anything, Mrs. Zabini's behavior is expected and has no bearing on what 'good' people do in regards to marriage.

---

I would submit that another good point not to forget would be JKR's comments about the parallels between the HP relationships and her own in real life.

Not only has she been quoted as saying something along the lines of having put herself into the characters of both Ginny and Hermione, but that, while she originally married someone like Ron and it didn't work out at all, her current husband is more like Harry.

Hmm... so we ditch the guy who's like Ron and...

If this trend of fantasy paralleling reality continues, it doesn't take a genius to see what it potentially says about love and marriage in the Wizarding world. :facepalm

I feel that has more bearing on the subject than the actions of the obviously villainous widow Zabini.

 

This.

And even if it being solely for children/young adults is arguable, it is told in the majority from a particularly stupid child's perspective - which allows JKR to get away with plotholes, inconsistencies and other things no other authors could.

To a kid like that, unless Petunia and Vernon had gone through a messy divorce, the perspective of his dead parent's marriage is going to be one of sparkly rainbows and butterflies. This will translate onto every other marriage - for all their flaws and hatred of him, the Dursleys are very happily married. The Weasleys appear to be the perfect family. And so on.

 

I think it stopped being a children series when she offed Diggory. Any book with its major theme being death really doesn't warrant being labeled a children's book. Unless its called the Bible.

 

This isn't true. There is a wealth of books for children that deal with death. I can remember how some of my favourite books as a child had death in (this is child's fiction, I mean, not the weird shit I've always read).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jan/04/juliaecclesharethebowerbir

There are books 'to help children deal with' war, terror, torture, abuse, grief, grieving and so on.

 

Bridge to Terabithia being one of my favorites from back in the day. And I remember one of my teachers -second or third grade- couldn't stop sobbing long enough to read A Taste of Blackberries to the class.

The Pinballs (published the year I was born) wasn't necessarily about death, but the kids in it were dealing with some shitty situations.

 

I so fucking hated the movie. It was absolutely disgusting.
Edit: Newbery medal? Seriously?

 

It's been made into one at least twice, but I'll assume you mean the more recent one.

It could have been much, much worse. Paterson's son, for whom the book was actually written, helped adapt the film, which does make me feel a bit better about it.

But, as per usual, the book is infinitely better. I gave a copy to my niece, for Christmas, some years ago.

Yes, seriously. I'm picking up a "haven't read the book" vibe from you. Word to the wise: Never judge a book by its movie; that would be ignorant.

 

I am still in shock that there is a Newbery Medal. There are some serious trolls in the American Library Association.