So neither of you saw any subtext relating to race issues, people from different social strata, different race, different sexuality (even bestiality if you believe Aberforth's criminal record), fluid gender roles, oppression of minorities for both practical and misinformed reasons, not to mention different ethical beliefs?

Wow. Must be my imagination, then.

 

Sure I did but I don't see the need for a long drawn out spiel about how there was some subtext that might be interpreted as racism but what I sure as hell didn't see was different sexuality and fluid gender roles (Especially this one!), where did you pull that out off? I mean other than your ass.

And yes you can quote the line mentioning the bestiality (goat stuff) but is there ANY evidence for that it is true?


Edit: seeing as I have contributed to derailing this thread quite a bit here is a gif http://www.memecenter.com/fun/2554645/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-facts

 

We could just just appreciate that JKR touched on hard topics subtly, instead of serving it up in the head-->mallet SJW way.

 

On the bestiality front I'm more concerned with Hagrid's work in creating the blast-ended skrewt, but Aberforth was arrested for inappropriate charms on a goat.

As for the gender-role thing, that's the Tonks-Lupin household dynamic, right there. She's the aggressor in their relationship, the bread-winner and the one with a career in life-threatening duties whilst Remus is a teacher and told to stay home with his son or else he's being irresponsible.

Dumbledore was gaily-dressed gay man from his first appearance, with the only hetero indication being that he blushed when Pomfrey complimented him on his Christmas earmuffs.

If you didn't see it, great- these weren't that important, but they were there, in defiance of the hypertwitch's assertion that JKR was all about the white people's beauty and power.

 

So here's the problems I have with that post, not even from a 'Ermehrgerd SJW tumblr omg omg omg' kneejerk...

The Weasleys' (by birth) alternate interpretations feature gender issues that were barely in the public mind in the early/mid 90s. She followed much of the old adage "write what you know" - cf. Hermione (and Lockhart?), and probably others.

There are definite arguments to be made about Luna and DSM diagnoses. Neville didn't have the best early years and I think you can argue at least a limited form of atychiphobia (fear of failure) for him. Remus is pretty much an analogy for HIV/AIDS - again, much more in the public eye in the 90s. And while we're sort of on the topic, sexual orientations in children's books / early YA books? It might be more prevalent now, but it wasn't then, even only 8-12 years ago.

And yes, perhaps Rowling could have been more varied in skin colouration. However, I don't know if she was going for a sort-of-average distribution of colour, or whatever it was. If she'd included one character of colour in an important role (because let's face it, Kingsley and Dean generally aren't important), she'd be accused of tokenism. If she'd included two or more, she'd be accused of being demographically inaccurate. These things you generally cannot win.

It's a good application of the 'death of the author' poststructuralist/postmodernist type analysis. It's just sad that in the crusade, the blogger developed slight tunnel vision.

 

Ok, lets post something slightly more funny:



(but really only slightly)

 

And without him they'd have all been killed by Voldemort so fuck 'em.

 

Classic

 

Damn, I'm impressed.

 

Damn. Wow.

 

Eh, I don't think it works very well. The Harry and Dumbledore parts fit, but I don't see how Snape and Voldemort correspond to the other brothers.

 

One died for power, one for lost love, one greeted Death like an old friend. Roughly how it goes.

 

That glosses over a lot of problems, such as Voldemort being the one to kill Snape for the Elder wand. No Peverell brother killed another for their Hallow.

You also have problems of assigning Hallows to them. Who represents Antioch (wand) and who's Cadmus (stone)? You'd think that Voldemort should have the wand, because it's the most directly associated with power. But that leaves Snape with the stone, which doesn't fit him thematically as Voldemort is the one who's obsessed with death. Further, Voldemort killed Snape believing him to be the master of the wand, so if Snape represents Cadmus that makes no sense. Plus, Antioch was the one who died to have the Elder wand taken from him, yet in this scenario Voldemort (Antioch) is the one doing the killing to take the wand.

But if you switch it around so Snape represents Antioch and Voldemort represents Cadmus, you have equal problems, because now the person who died for power doesn't have the Hallow associated with power.

Also, thinking on it more, Harry doesn't really fit very well either. Ignotus never possessed all three Hallows. The whole idea of the Master of Death is that he's superior to all three brothers, not Ignotus reborn. Ignotus may have been the most enlightened of the three, but he still hid from death his entire life, then passed the claok on to his son so he could hide from death in turn. The Master of Death does not hide from death, he confronts it head on.

 

Mucho Sadness.

 

Ignoring how right some of the other parts more, Snape having the stone is perfect. Snape's character revolves around his unsettled issues with Lily, that can never be resolved because she is dead. If each of the character had the hallow associated with them, they each would have gotten what they wanted. Voldemort wanted power (over death), Snape wanted to see his loved one again (Lily), and Harry wanted to be unseen (or more like average). If Snape had gotten ahold of the stone, do you really think he would have been so different from Cadmus, who wasted his life calling up his dead loved ones? I imagine Snape, above all others, would have been entranced by the mirror of Erised.

 

They're not a mirror image of three long dead brothers. If you want to pick at details you might as well go with the biggest one - they're not real brothers. They just match the theme of each item.

 

Damn, now I want to read a tragic oneshot in which Snapes gets the Resurrection Stone and summons Lily.

 

The problem is that Snape's motivated by remorse for her death, not a desire to bring her back to life. Sure, I'm sure he'd like to talk to her, perhaps to apologise, but it's not like it would change anything. She'd still be dead and it would still be his fault.