Do you realize how the intertwining of the Potter and Weasley lines has degraded the House of Potter?

First, there is a very sensible reason to having one, maybe two children if you are a member of a great house. If you have three that means your fortune will be split three ways, with each of your children receiving less than what you receive. That may not be a problem the first generation, but I can see the Potters as rich as the Weasleys 3-5 generations down the line if they continued these breeding habits.

Second, the horrible genes aside, we know Ginny is probably as fertile as her mother. What's to stop her from pumping out more kids after the epilogue.

Has anyone stopped to consider if those children are actually Harry's? We know Ginny enjoys the attention...

 

You know, when I was reading the second book for the first time, I knew that Harry would, in the end, be a part of the Weasley clan. What Rowling tried to do here is give him a perfect family to settle into. So I agree with nonjon on that matter.

And Methene, nowhere in canon does it actually say House of Potter. You're making it sound like Potter is a stinking rich family. I daresay you've been reading too much fanfiction, because only fanon describes Harry as filthy rich. In canon, Harry doesn't have enough money to buy the Firebolt without nearly finishing off his vault. It says so in PoT.

Even if he does have three children, Harry will manage to pay for whatever they need from what he gets as an Auror. That's getting a job to pay for your kids, just like in real life. He has the money he inherited from his parents, but it'll run out and won't keep food on the table.

His children, once their out of Hogwarts, get jobs, pay their bills, and etc. Once Harry dies, they inherit what's left of his money in his retirement. If this keeps on, no, Potters won't be as poor as Weasleys

We're talking about canon here, after all.

 

Ah you have a misconception here. In Prisoner of Azkaban, PoA by the way, the price of the Firebolt is given on demand. Harry, being the moron he is, does not inquire as to it. As a result, we do not know if he has or does not have enough money to buy it.

Now, in one of JKR's interviews a fan asked what James Potter did for a living. She responded that the Potters were wealthy enough and that he did not work. And because I am nice enough, I'll even give you a link for it:

Click me!

The point was not to scrape an existence and manage to pay the bills. The point was about preserving a fortune. Any moron worth his salt in the Wizarding world can get by. It takes careful planning and political and business savvy to preserve and expand your fortune.

 

Right, PoA. Don't know what I was thinking.

Anyway, I never saw that before, so thanks for giving me that tidbit. Yes, I agree Harry is rich. On the matter of the Firebolt, it is a broom for the professionals, it's implied.

We really aren't sure how much money Harry has. So we can't judge whether he is a moron or the Firebolt is actually too expensive for him.

Anyway, I was just saying that the Potters won't end up as poor as the Weasleys. The Weasleys have many reasons for why they are poor.

 

your right think of the amount of money that they would spend in an apothecary.......ingredients for that many love potions are bound to be expensive.
</IMG>

 

ivebeenviolated, I am sorry to say you are completely wrong in your assessment. The Weasleys are dirt poor, it's true, but Ginny has means to acquire Love Potions that go above those of a regular Weasel.

The best way to put it is in Ginny's to do list for every Hogwarts year:

1. Sleep around the school with several guys.
2. Demand, bitch, moan and complain to said guys about my family's poverty, until they give me galleons or gifts
3. Sell the gifts I receive from said guys, coupled with the galleons I received, start a savings vault.
4. When I reach the necessary amount, buy a Love Potion, slip it to Harry
5. No worries about money anymore since I get to spend the Potters vault *sidenote to future Ginny: still sleep around to maintain my reputation.

 

your right i didnt take gin-sluts "earnings" into account.....i was rereading philosophers stone a while back and i was just wondering what house is morag mcdougal in? not relevant to this topic but im just curious

 

This is a Harmony theory that I disagree with. The Weasleys aren't "sullying" the good name of anyone. The Potters don't have a good name. No one talks about them except out of pity or to drive the plot along.

Their careers, their achievements and their successes are irrelevant to the story. All that matters about them is that they loved Harry enough to lay down their lives for him. Harry Potter, by the end of Book 7, deserves the Weasleys.

He's just as bad a character as they all are. The Weasleys have no depth, and the only character that has depth (Percy Weasley) is shunned because he's ambitious and actually wants to be somebody in the world. The problem with the Harry Potter series is it's not a good message in the sense that "Ambition is evil". Everyone who ever wants to have something other than their family ends up either dead or disgraced. The entire House of Slytherin abandons Hogwarts (save Slughorn) and cunning, guile and wit are attributes that are portrayed as undesirable.

That's shoddy story-writing but in the context of the story, Harry is no better than the Weasleys and quite bluntly, is one. He has none of the attributes that Dumbledore has (and what do you know, now Dumbledore is tainted and disgraced).

So no, the theory that J.K. Rowling is obsessed with the Weasleys is for the delusional and is usually a crutch for the Harmony shippers (of which I am one of but not that creepy) - the entire story, from the moment the Weasleys help Harry through the barrier and when Ginny chases after the train to the epilogue that shows the next generation Weasley clan seeing off their children is a story about family.

You can't call it obsession with the Weasleys. You can call it an obsession with love and families. The entire point of the story is what is in fact written. The parallels between the Dursleys and the Weasleys are introduced at the beginning of each story and reinforced through Harry's power at the end of each tale. I know I expected Harry to actually have powers and some sort of strength but he doesn't have anything extraordinary (from my perspective) other than his ability to carelessly throw his life around and blindly accept supposed truths about love.

It's again shoddy story-telling, because the Dursleys aren't a bad family. People who spoil their children aren't bad people and they at least worked and made a living wage and didn't bring children into a world of poverty. If you want to understand what the Dursleys went through, try forcing a Christian or Hindu child on a Muslim. The key is forcing. This entire story is about free-will and making choices and yet everyone viciously attacks the Dursleys for something they had no choice over and whose free-will was stolen from them.

You don't put a Israeli child in a Palestinian family's home and you don't put a Wizard in a family of people who hate imagination and loathe magic.

We see everything from the eyes of Harry - Dudley getting 39 presents, Marge insulting him, etc, etc. The reality is that's, as far as I'm aware of, normal behavior. The only difference is it's said in his company, rather than behind his back.

Oh well. The blame rests on Dumbledore's shoulders.

Now onto her treatise on how families should work. Seven children brought into an impoverished, dilapidated home. That's irresponsible. Again - I doubt anyone's going to suddenly go out and spawn seven children despite being poor.

People do have some common sense and we often forget that J.K. Rowling isn't an author of merit in the ways Tolkien and Pullman or Pratchett are. Rowling believes heavily in hyperbole (thirty-nine presents, a hundred thousand people in a Quidditch stadium in a country that boasts maybe five thousand wizards, the importance of Hogwarts and house placement). Severus Snape's petty insults are taken to extremes and the ineffectiveness and pointlessness of schooling at Hogwarts become evident and your suspension of disbelief is stretched to its limits. I mean, honestly - Minerva McGonagall is the only good teacher we see on a consistent basis through each book.

Voldemort isn't a villain; he's a cartoon. He's a caricature of great villains such as Professor Moriarty and Sauron, delving into elaborate plots and hiding behind a destroyed visage but accomplishes nothing. His reign would be far more terrible but really - he attacked a school and killed a few people. He has no depth.

I thought Hermione was progressing into a deep character but Half-Blood Prince rolled around and she reverted to answer-to-everything mode and romance-induced Hermione.

Ron's character has no point. Rowling however calls Ron "undesirable" and "not good to date". He has no depth (despite her claims) and so he's paired with another person who is undesirable in her world (and in some circles, ours) due to her scholarly approach to everything. She's a lowly employee in some department and has produced children, repenting for such crimes against humanity.

So I ask: where do you see any inconsistencies on the part of Rowling? She has, throughout her story, made sure her characters who are good and whom deserve to live and enjoy love (what she deems as the only acceptable reward) are all the same. The ones who differ are dead - Dumbledore and Snape are gone.

Percival Weasley has "reformed" and has been spared the executioner.

The Weasleys aren't the obsession.

The obsession is on families, love and not having ambition. People who want to do something with their lives are not good people. The house devoted to it obviously needs to be cleansed.

We know (in Rowling's mind) Albus Severus never went into Slytherin. He doesn't want to go there and it's pretty evident she has not resolved this thread. How does one resolve an entire quarter of the population automatically being evil on the basis of a thirty second sorting? You don't.

It's a children's story that's also an adult story that isn't. When the theme's deep enough, it's an adult story. When the theme is stupid, cliched, trite or silly, it's a children's story. Anyone who debates this in the circles in which her supporters frequent will face this. It's a children's story that's also an adult story that isn't.

In reality, it's just a children's story that fails to do what it's supposed to. Teach a clever little moral that everyone already knows. I certainly didn't know I needed to disregard the fact that people need money to raise children or to survive. I didn't know that ambition was bad.

Oh well.

 

If the rep system was around I am sure you would be rewarded quite nicely with the above post. I agree with your post, her emphasis had always been about love and family, what i never really understood is the reason why the Weasleys had so many children, if they were poor to begin with why bring more in?

 

The Potter's may not be the stinking billionaires they are so often depicted as, but they are well off enough that they can marry into the Black family without offending anyone, and I am under the impression that Harry's vault is a trust vault, which means presumably that there is more money elsewhere. Sirius also lived with James and his parents, and as Godric's Hallow was James' and Lily's home, it is not unreasonable to conclude that at some point, there was (and still perhaps is) a Potter family home.

This does not necessarily make them ridiculously wealthy now, but it seems reasonable to conclude the Potters mixed with the upper crusts (or at least the higher end middle...crusts) throughout their history.

Perhaps instead of looking at Rowling's decision as a wholly bad thing, we can in fact learn a valuable lesson: Fuck around in school, goof off in class and whine about your popularity, even though you lead a lifestyle of sloth that requires your fame to bail you out time and time again - well, you'll end up married to an incestuous slut.

It's Fleur I feel sorry for.

 

Thanks.

Also, Methene:

If you want to introduce a theory or idea on how Rowling works, you need to really separate fanon and canon. I know you're likely joking about Ginny's intentions but there are none. Ginny Weasley isn't a bad person, she's a bad character.

There's a difference and it can be subtle. It's fun to bash her and come up with amusing nicknames for her but let's realize:

1) She ran after a train.
2) She got possessed by Voldemort (lesser people have been subjected to this and it's not something that makes her bad or evil).
3) She gave chocolate to Harry in Order of the Phoenix and related to him in that they've both been possessed (something I find insulting from my perspective but from the majority of fandom's perspective is a nice thing to do).
4) She plays Quidditch (and goes onto have a career in it)
5) She went to the Department of Mysteries as a member of the sextet.
6) She's Harry's girlfriend in Book 6.

Here's a little statistical sheet for you:

Times names are mentioned
Philosopher's Stone
Harry: 1318
Ron: 453
Hermione: 269
Ginny: 5

Chamber of Secrets
Harry: 1634
Ron: 694
Hermione: 319
Ginny: 114

Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry: 1986
Ron: 755
Hermione: 638
Ginny: 17

Goblet of Fire
Harry: 3162
Ron: 1040
Hermione: 870
Ginny: 46
Cho: 32

Order of the Phoenix
Harry: 4016
Ron: 1298
Hermione: 1306
Ginny: 245
Cho: 151

Half-Blood Prince
Harry: 2782
Ron: 886
Hermione: 690
Ginny: 234

Deathly Hallows
Harry: 3128
Ron: 1179
Hermione: 1222
Ginny: 121

I think you might be getting the point. It's that Ginny isn't a bad person but it's that she's a bad character. Why is she a bad character? Because she's elevated to a position of importance (in our minds), that of romantic interest, with little to no depth.

In reality, she comes off as the hot prep-girl or cheerleader in school by Half-Blood Prince. She has no bad detractors - she doesn't stab Harry in the face or plot to "get him", otherwise we'd obviously see it.

For some, Ginny is a bad character because of fanon (which seems to be your issue). You've read one too many fics where Ginny created the Amorentia Potion or is using Harry for his fame and money. Or you read one too many fics that are "fluffy" and which have Harry be heroic one moment but break at the seams the next whenever Ginny is around (Chest-Monster Syndrome).

It's one thing to hate Ginny in fanon and subsequently hate her in canon - it's really a reader's choice but it's a whole new animal when you mix the two and try to bring it into a debate or present a theory that's focused entirely on canon. You can have the hate but try to remove it from your points (otherwise no one would be able to debate it if we tried to determine the intentions of a character that has virtually little page-time).

 

You're right of course. My hate of Ginny is based on fanon, canon Ginny is a character that should have had her claim to fame in book two and then put to rest. I should not have intertwined the two. On a side note, I was joking about Gin-Gin's use of the love potion.

For the reference, I am a Harry/Fleur shipper at heart.

I see the idea behind love and family and other such homely elements being behind the picture in JKR's intentions. Perhaps that is what drove her to create the Weasley village. I am adverse to the whole family environment, and as such my opinion may be biased.

The fact that she puts the Weasley family as the objective of how our lives should be like is wrong on many levels. First, they are poor. That cannot be questioned even by the die-hard Weasley fan.

Second, they are poor, but decide to have seven children. Magical number aside, less children equals more money per capita.

Third, Mollywobbles decides to be a housewife and Arthur has no ambition whatsoever, probably going to retire with the same posting he has now.

Frankly, JKR's portrayal of the Weasley would fit in perfectly with one of the Communist posters advocating more children. Arthur is an average worker, Molly is a devoted housewife and they have done their duty to the Motherland. I find the whole concept disgusting.

 

Weasley Family as members of British Magical Communist Party Working for the Great World Bolshevik Revolution. The idea is pure gold.

 

LOL yeah that is an amusing thought.

I would like to make a counter argument for the multiple children bit. In the real world, poor nations like, say Bangladesh, have a high birth rate because more of the children die young. So the more you have the better chance that some may live. Plus more children mean more people to bring in food and help around the house.

Now none of this apply to the Weasleys, who thought poor can still afford a good life. Molly did not become fat on bread and water. The children aren't skinny malnourished runts. So they make do in terms of food and basic necessities.

What they can't afford are the luxury items, like new books for Hogwarts, or robes etc.

I think what JKR wants to convey is:

1. Large families are good
2. Money isn't as important as family
3. Money dosn't mean happiness (look at the Malfoys)
4. Red-heads rule

Is she obsessed with the Weasleys? I think she just couldn't be bothered to come up with new characters to do the things that need to be done so she used the Weasleys as a default.

 

Actually I think you're thinking of this in too "modern" of a viewpoint. Remember we're talking about the Magical world, where the culture pretty much mimics Victorian England of more than a century ago. Heirs were considered a must, and the more potential heirs you had the better.

Also remember that this is a society where Dueling appears to still be legal, and can be fatal, and thus it's likely that primary heirs are going to run afoul of trouble here and there, and some will likely die. Thus having a second or third son to step in to maintain the family line if the elder sibling dies would be nearly mandatory.

Think about it, the Malfoys are probably looked at with some degree of pity because they only have the one child. If Draco died ( a very real consideration with how assholishly he acted to others) who would continue the Malfoy line?

Finally, when I mentioned that you're thinking too modern about this remember...the standard practice of inheritance in Victorian times was that the eldest son got everything, except the dowries for any of the female siblings, and that the junior siblings were only given modest support to encourage them to go out and make their own fortunes. Today people expect that all the children will get equal shares of the estate.

Not saying that Harry would arrange it like this... but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the wizarding worlds laws used the more traditional and archaic forms of inheritance instead of the more modern expectations that all the children will get equal shares. If so, then it wouldn't matter how many kids they had... the eldest son would still get everything.

 

Thank you, I forgot about that point of the right of the first born. Can't believe it slipped my mind actually. Oh well, it happens.

I could definitely see the magical society mirroring those traditions.

 

As far as I recall, the only canon statement about Arthur Weasley having no ambition was made by Percy. It seems more to me like he's being punished for his love of muggles by a minister influenced by Lucius Malfoy.

Also, stepping back from a "modern" perspective...if the Weasleys are a somewhat old-fashioned family (which is supported by how upset Molly was by the twins' escape from school to set up a career based on a Joke Shop), then yes, Arthur would be the bread winner and Molly the housewife. Makes sense to me that way.

However...yes, the Weasleys get far too much attention in a book supposedly based on Harry Potter.

 

I don't really care either way. I'm on the Twins/Charlie/Bill pwn Ron/Gin/Molly side. But in the books, I believe Ron also said that Arthur could have been getting much more money- he just wanted to stay in misuse of muggle artifacts office because he was muggle obsessed.

 

Ravenclaw, as far as I know.

 

Methene, I hope you wouldn't be offended If I took this idea and ran with it?

Dude, the bile still rises in my throat when I think about it. It's going to sting for years. But that's what fanfiction's for.

God, poor Hermione. Poor, poor Hermione. Where's the girl that founded SPEW, the muggle-born who proved the wizarding prejudices wrong, who saved Harry's ass in every Book, who was going to change the world?

Oh, that's right. She became an incubator.

I don't really "hate" the Weasleys. The twins are always a good laugh, and Arthur usually makes me smile. I just hate Mollywobbles and Ron/Ginny.

Molly, because she's a holier-than-thou, snobby bitch who babies Harry to no end. Probably not a valid reason, but still, it pisses me off.

Ron/Ginny? They're interchangeable. Harry married Ron with a Vagina.