One of my biggest peeves? the word "Ward" for any protective/restraining enchantments.

 

I don't mind the use of wards myself but I dislike it when writers turn wards into a rune-based form of magic instead of just defensive spells.

 

T3t, you start off trying to make a good point, then veer dangerously off course almost without fail.

I think what you meant to say was; 'normal' or 'mundane' works if in the context of magic users classifying it as 'average' and themselves as 'superior'. He's not a magic user - he's normal.

Even then, in canon they are quite happy to be average wizards and witches, but are still quite blissfully quirky and abnormal. Many - including Dumbledore himself - have or would likely acknowledge this. It's die-hard supporters of muggles like Arthur Weasley who'd take exception to that - Muggles aren't normal, they're extraordinary! Look at this plug. The USA is one of the only countries off the top of my head wherein a large porton of the population would describe themselves as 'normal' and aspire to be 'average Americans' - many other cultures do not have this in such plain terms.

That said, pedantry aside, using normal, mundane or even overusing muggle as a group label is terrible writing and authors who do so should feel ashamed.

 

As far as canon is concerned Ancient Runes is just a class where you learn to read, well, Ancient Runes. Virtually every reference in canon is about translating or reading runes. It might also include some other 'rune like' stuff like ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs but that's a bit more uncertain. Having said that, I don't mind rune magic too much as long as people remember that it is the author changing canon, if in a small way. It was handled very well in Bungle in the Jungle, I thought, but that probably has more to do with jbern's skill than anything else.

 

Correct term for muggles is magically challenged.

 

That's just the PC term that replaced 'talking cattle' and 'mana-tards'.

 

When the tasks in the first book are used as an example of Albus being overly manipulative. Albus' personal task was working. The incompetence was the teachers'.

When some student figures out how to pass Fluffy by reading about mythology. If every cerberus had the same weakness and it's documented then buttering Hagrid up would be pointless.

Btw how many posts do I need before I can recommend a story?

 

You can recommend whenever you want.

 

But it has to be a good one.

 

anyone else here tired of Molly 'The Potion Brewer' Weasley? Or illegal marriage contracts?

 

Since everyone read those words for the first time in 2007 or maybe earlier :\

 

2004...not 2007.

 

I've run into the problem of what to call muggles in one of my stories. The term 'muggle' has not been around forever, so I found myself in a bind as to what to call them before that term was coined. I settled for stuff like 'the common folk'. As for 'normal' and 'mundane', I don't think it is a matter of perspective. I think it's a matter of logistics. There are ten thousand muggles (or more) for every single wizard, so really, you would have to be one of the 50 pureblood fanatics left living under a rock to think you're the 'normal' one. I think 'mundane' is a good word for muggle, because it means ordinary, unexciting, run-of-the-mill, which is a good way to describe a common human.

As for 'wards'... I agree. It's just such a bland word. That term is found in many other fantasy works, but HP isn't one of them. I avoid using it at all costs, and either generalize it as 'magical protections', or be a bit more specific such as 'Fidelius Charm' or 'Disapparation Jinx'. I think describing protections in story as various charms, jinxes, curses, enchantments, and the like is a much better description than just saying 'wards' anyways, because it gives a wider scope.

 

I can't make threads in the review sections.


I was thinking the same thing as you on the subject Anarchy. There's far more muggles than magical folk and so normal wouldn't be too much of a stretch depending on how you look at it.

 

If you look at it from the point of view of muggles, then yeah muggles are normal. But wizards are not going to infer that they are abnormal, by saying that muggles are normal.

 

No not abnormal, but perhaps superior.

 

Savages, brutes, mudmen, the unwashed, grogs, apes with clothes, the dreamless (in the sense that muggles can't make theirs a reality), thaumatologically bereft, low men...

It may be just simple enough to call them men, if the wizardkind use 'wizard' as a similar racial identifier. I remember reading some excerpt of a story where the progression from 'ugly muck dwellers' or something got reversed, compressed and otherwise deformed into 'muggles'.

 

I literally said exactly this at the top of the page. Like, third post in.

 

You can't make Frodo a Jedi without giving Sauron the Death Star.

I freaking hate this saying. I mean what the hell? If you give Sauron the Death Star Middle Earth is fucked because Frodo the Jedi CAN'T FIND ANY FUCKING X-WING IN MIDDLE EARTH.

Seriously!

 

What the hell are you talking about?

EDIT: Ah. Apparently it's something people who think they're so much cleverer then everyone else use and try to explain the basis of "A powerful character requires a powerful opponent."

The saying actually makes sense. Frodo is a Jedi, meaning you're in the future. If Sauron doesn't have the Death Star, he's no longer a legitimate threat, just some idiot eye in a tower.