BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


My anti-Harry Potter rant

 
  

Page: 1234(5)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:04 / 05.11.07
Indeed. Since Hogwarts is the only magical school in the United Kingdom, every wizarding child goes there; it is neither selective nor fee-paying. Presumably it is funded by the Ministry of Magic, possibly in combination with the investments and resources of the school itself. As far as I recall, the education, board, food and so on are free at the point of delivery.
 
 
wicker woman
04:10 / 06.11.07
it is neither selective

From the bit in book 7, where Lupin shows up at Grimmauld Place, just after he has explained to our heroes that they're doing pureblood checks and interrogating suspected 'mudbloods':

"Ron, as we're on the run with Harry Potter, the most wanted person in the country, I don't think it matters. If I was going back to school it would be different. What's Voldemort planning for Hogwarts?" she asked Lupin.

"Attendance is now compulsory for every young witch and wizard," he replied. "That was announced yesterday. It's a change, because it was never obligatory before. Of course, nearly every witch and wizard in Britain has been educated at Hogwarts, but their parents had the right to teach them at home or send them abroad if they preferred."


Not sure about the subsidizing of the school, but you're likely right. Wonder what the pay rate is for a Hogwarts professor these days...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:07 / 06.11.07
Well, precisely. It isn't selective - every wizard in the country is able to send their childrne there if they want, regardless of ability, and there is no other school in the country. It's a state-funded comprehensive - what I think Americans call a public school - albeit one which appears to have the sort of history, independence in curriculum setting and teaching methods that one would expect of a selective, fee-paying school - that is, what the British would call a public school.
 
 
Ex
07:20 / 06.11.07
Presumably it is funded by the Ministry of Magic, possibly in combination with the investments and resources of the school itself.

One of those resources being the army of house-elves - they must cut down on the budget for staffing to provide cooking, cleaning and grateful grovelling.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:30 / 06.11.07
Oh, yes. I forgot about the slave army. More like a British public school, then.

Good question about how rich HP actually is - I think the film suggests vast wealth, but if Gringotts is actually the only possible way to bank - that is, if it is to banking as Hogwarts is to education - then that may be deceptive - if the only way to access your money, no matter how little you may have, is to go through the rigmarole with the goblins. However, apparently JKR has stated that Harry has inherited considerable wealth from his grandparents on his father's side - combination of a very old wizarding family and no other relatives, one assumes.
 
 
wicker woman
08:13 / 06.11.07
It's a state-funded comprehensive - what I think Americans call a public school - albeit one which appears to have the sort of history, independence in curriculum setting and teaching methods that one would expect of a selective, fee-paying school - that is, what the British would call a public school.

Yeah, yeah. Ooh la la, look at me, I'm not American so I get a decent education and the occasional politician who isn't mentally defective...

*sigh* Anyone need a roommate? I'm good with the rent, I swear.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:12 / 06.11.07
Oh, no - it's just terminology. Britain's "public" schools are an elite group of selective, fee-paying and usually very old schools, which often have boarders (live-in students), house competitions, school songs and the like - there's nothing public about them, and the name is a historical survival. Our open-to-all, state-funded schools are called comprehensives, but we still have them, and a muddy tranche of fee-paying schools, faith schools and so on in between the two poles. I didn't mean to suggest that our actually public education is any better than anywhere else's.

Hogwarts has elements of both - the ancient buildings, long history, house structure, ornate uniforms, dormitories and frankly casual approach to the physical and mental well-being of its students are pure public school, but the education it offers is free (or paid for by general taxation - do we know if taxation exists in the wizarding world?- along with endowments to the school, interest, that sort of thing) and there is no entrance exam or exclusion policy - not surprising, given that it is the only magical school in the British Isles, and also given the very small wizard population - give or take a handful of homeschooled children, the student body of Hogwarts - 300 or so - represents every wizard in the British Isles between 11 and 18, it seems.
 
 
grant
16:21 / 06.11.07
do we know if taxation exists in the wizarding world?

How does *money* work? Can't they just... make more?

Or locate bits of gold then teleport them into empty pockets?
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
16:37 / 06.11.07
The more I think about it, the odder it seems to me that there is no tertiary education in the wizard world. Surely if one were to train to be, say, an Auror, one would need a level of instruction above and beyond that provided at Hogwarts? Perhaps the Ministry has a kind of Hendon Police College for Aurors that Rowling neglected to mention, or one enters a kind of post-Hogwarts YTS scheme?
 
 
wicker woman
03:02 / 07.11.07
It doesn't really fit in with the books, mind, but I've wondered about that myself. Are there any sort of basic Math or English classes? Science classes would, I suppose, be irrelevant in that world...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:25 / 07.11.07
None of the above. In one sense, this is quite progressive - you learn English and Maths from the everyday activity of writing essays, buying butterbeer and so on. In another sense, it's pretty disastrous, and explains presumably why agriculture, finance, fine art and essentially everything else is left either to normal humans or to goblins. Upon graduation, almost all the children end up working as bureaucrats for the Ministry of Magic, a totalitarian one-party state apparatus, and spending the money they earn there in shops, shopkeeping being the other main occupation of wizards. Everyone else appears to become a publican, a teacher at Hogwarts (and thus effectively an employee of the Ministry - see also the Weasley off with the dragons, the health service and the editorial staff at the newspaper), a professional quidditch player or a pop star. No, really - there are about two dozen British Quidditch teams, each made up of, let's say, a squad of twelve. The total wizard population of the UK is, accounting for longevity, probably somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000. So, your chance of being an elite athlete is, conservatively, about 2%. Your chances of being a member of the Wyrd Sisters is a little smaller than your chances of being a Weasley. The shopkeepers either retail goods (in which case there must be a producer, wizard or otherwise, somewhere down the line), or make them themselves, like Ollivander or the Weasleys.

Unless you get a job either in the Ministry, serving it pies or playing quidditch, you're stuffed by a complete absence of other skills. The people sleeping rough under Victoria embankment and living on sandwiches who think they are magicians? They are. Not for nothing is the hospital for magical maladies called St. Mungo's - it gives the down-and-out wizard a familiar name to seek out.

(Incidentally, there's a Rowling statement to the effect that there is a three-year Auror course - effectively an apprenticeship or tertiary education - Tonks was taught by Moody during hers. However, it does still mean that you decide at 18 whether somebody should be trained to be an elite magical warrior/policeman based on their A-levels.)
 
 
Janean Patience
07:35 / 07.11.07
You decide at 18 whether somebody should be trained to be an elite magical warrior/policeman based on their A-levels.

Is there a talking hat to make that decision? Or perhaps a chatty scarf, or a loquacious pair of gloves. One must do these things properly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:48 / 07.11.07
There was a careers off-the-shoulder, but it was sacked among accusations of bias.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:07 / 07.11.07
Unlike the sorting hat which, as I vaguely recall, actually gave Harry say on where he was going to end up.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
05:15 / 08.11.07
On the poor state of education in the Potterverse, it does make you wonder if Ron spent all those years between the main story and that epilogue trying to learn to drive a Muggle car.

Although I wouldn't have thought he'd have that much problem, what with the flying car he drove in the second book.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
20:45 / 11.11.07
One of my main bugbears with HP is the way in which it deals, or doesn't, with teenage rebellion. Can there be another school in contemporary fiction where there is less rebellion (I'm not counting Dubledore's army / various peregrinations around the school at night under the invisibility cloak - these are plot driven rather than instances of rebelling-for-the-sake-of-it)? As far as I understand from the books (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Weasley twins are pretty much the only students sticking it to 'The Man', and they do this through the woeful mechanism of pocket-money jokes. The rest of the Hogwarts student body are happy to whoop and cheer for their House, just like the school wants them to, and drink Dumbledore-sanctioned butter beer when surely magic could provide them with something a lot harder. Hogwarts has never, so far as Rowling tells us, seen a single teenage pregnancy, or even a single game of milky biscuit. In a school where jocks are king, there seems to not be a sub-culture of indie kids of any stripe, only the odd nerd, which is extremely odd.

Surely there is some fan fiction out there in which, say, Neville Longbottom returns for a new term wearing a trenchcoat, and then goes on a Cruciatus Spree only for the Daily Prophet to blame it on the fact he's recently gotten into the Wyrd Sisters, or in which Justin Fitch-Fletchley meets a foxy girl in a Hogsmead cafe, and then takes to the roof of Hogwarts with his pissed off Hufflepuff mates and a cache of wands and then opens fire on staff and parents on founders day?
 
 
Jack Fear
22:11 / 11.11.07
%%Yeah, because that kind of behavior wouldn't be odd at all, since it happens at every school all the time and is in no way a freakish outlier.%%
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
22:39 / 11.11.07
And there was me thinking that replays of Columbine / the final act of 'If...' occured on a daily basis! Thanks for the heads up! Now, can you tell me whether it's normal for the student body in Greater London comprehensives to react to the herion addiction of one of their classmates by releasing a pop/rap record entreating today's youth to 'Just Say No', or for Local Education Authorities to employ Demon Headmasters, or are these also two of the 'freakish outliers' of which you speak? Just don't tell me that not all pupils in elite American schools react to the dismissal of an unorthodox yet beloved member of teaching staff by standing on their desks and proclaiming 'O Captain! My Captain!'. That would surely kill me.
 
 
grant
14:43 / 12.11.07
Actually, I thought there was something hinting at that around Moaning Myrtle, but she was told rather comically.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
11:03 / 13.11.07
Well, Rowling claimed that Myrtle was a Ravenclaw on her website, and Ravenclaws seem of all the houses closest to being the indie kids of Hogwarts*. Luna Lovegood is a Ravenclaw, too. In my most troubling moments, I imagine her and her father Xenophilius as members of a HP version of an Invisibles cell. The Quibbler, after all, might as well have the words 'It's all true' on its masthead.


*Which might mean that they listen to the wizard version of The Smiths on the common-room stereo, but then again it might mean that they listen to a magical Kaiser Chiefs...
 
 
Janean Patience
11:43 / 13.11.07
The Kaiser Chiefs couldn't be any more magical than they already are, surely? Every one of their songs is sprinkled in fairy dust, tweaked with production sorcery, and enchants its way into our hearts and our charts.
 
 
grant
20:23 / 17.04.08
Your Honor, that's just mean.
 
 
grant
13:48 / 02.05.08
And along the same lines, Orson Scott Card's anti-Harry Potter rant.

Excerpt:

Mine is not the only work that one can charge Rowling "borrowed" from. Check out this piece from a fan site, pointing out links between Harry Potter and other previous works: http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm. And don't forget the lawsuit by Nancy K. Stouffer, the author of a book entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, whose hero was named "Larry Potter."

At that time, Rowling's lawyers called Stouffer's claim "frivolous."

It's true that we writers borrow words from each other - but we're supposed to admit it and not pretend we're original when we're not. I took the word ansible from Ursula K. LeGuin, and have always said so. Rowling, however, denies everything.

If Steven Vander Ark, the author of Lexicon, had written fiction that he claimed was original, when it was actually a rearrangement of ideas taken from the Harry Potter books, then she'd have a case.

But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.

Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe: Prior to the publication of each novel, there were books about them that were no more intrusive than Lexicon. I contributed to one of them, and there was no complaint about it from Rowling or her publishers because they knew perfectly well that these fan/scholar ancillary publications were great publicity and actually boosted sales.

But now the Harry Potter series is over, and Rowling claims that her "creative work" is being "decimated."
 
 
ninjalie
17:25 / 03.05.08
Okay so first of all, I've read the Harry Potter books. Please don't stone me! I started reading them when I was a kid and even though they became less appealing as I grew older I wanted to finish off the series so I did. I thought it was decent seeing as it's a book for children and most children aren't as critical as adults.

Here's what annoys me about Harry Potter, THE FAN FICTION! Oh god the fan fiction, will it ever end? I also hate the products they make with it. Just watch they'll do just like they did with Tolkien's work and make an awful Tarot Deck based around the characters. I can see it now, Voldemort is the Devil and Dumbledore is the magician. Who's going to care if there aren't actually enough characters to correspond to the major arcana? Their marketing team will figure something out.

Anything with this much hype is bound to irritate more than a few people. Personally, I don't care what other peoples kids read that much. Oh and for the record, I enjoyed the His Dark Materials books a lot. I don't feel any shame over it!
 
 
Twice
21:32 / 04.05.08
And don't forget the lawsuit by Nancy K. Stouffer, the author of a book entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, whose hero was named "Larry Potter."

Except is wasn't.

I mean, it would have been nice of JK to have given her a mil for being first to the word 'muggle', but the Rah book was hardly published at all, and the Larry Potter bit was a character in some sort of stories which were never published at all, but Stauffer pulled it out of her chest of drawers and said "Look! I invented Harry Potter (nearly) in a story that I never got published, you RAT!"
 
 
Zephyrtron
14:01 / 18.10.08
Unfortunately I'm split on this, like my brain is fighting.

1) I've read them all, and there's just something about them that kept me reading. I wasn't overwhelmed, or inspired or blown away. I just consumed them, like a particularly satisfying meal.
They're pure pop lit, in that I'd say Rowling's style and prose offers nothing more than a solid, dependable and escapist read. And, hell, what's wrong with that? Sometimes we all need a breather between Eco and Roth!

2) Christ, but people get carried away defending them don't they? The same kind of people who make such a fuss about bands, but can't bring themselves to just accept that they're fun and great, but not really world changing.
Fact is, when you threaten someone's cosy escapism, you're always going to turn them into a cornered animal. No?
 
 
Milky Joe
12:16 / 02.11.08
What a pompous and pretentious topic. If you don’t want to read the Potter books that is fair enough but why criticise those who do? The simple fact is that kids love them and anything that gets kids reading instead of sitting in front of an Xbox all day long is a good thing.

I don’t like the hype and I laugh at people who claim they are great works of literature. However, I have enjoyed the Potter books. Whilst, I don’t claim they are great writing they are good story telling and on the whole flow quite well. They are fun and encourage kids to recognise the importance of friendship and tolerance.

I dislike it when people who think they are too intellectual to read a Potter book start criticising people who do read them. What business is it of anyone else if an adult reads a Potter a book? It is just a case of different strokes for different folks.

The ‘it’s popular’ so I have a duty to hate it people are just pathetic. Especially the morons who say I have never read one of these books but I am going to go online and say how rubbish they are. These people remind of the idiots who used to campaign for books like ‘Lady Chatterley…’ to banned without reading it first or the people who stand outside cinemas demanding films like ‘Life of Brian’ are banned without having watched the film in the first place. It's all a bit sad and pathetic.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:26 / 02.11.08
But! You clearly have not actually read this thread, and only spunked your rage milk at the title and possibly first couple of posts. Ergo, you are critcising a discussion thread you haven't read on the grounds that people criticise Harry Potter books without reading them.

Ironiam Leviosa!
 
 
Janean Patience
20:50 / 02.11.08
Isn't that an ad hominem attack? From the Latin ad hominem meaning "to attack someone in Latin?"
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:22 / 02.11.08
Strictly, an ad hominem is a rhetorical action intended to encourage the audience to disregard somebody's point based on a feature of their character rather than a feature of the argument. I'm not really seeking to propose that the argument be disgregarded, only that the argument is based on a false premise - that is, that this thread is full of people saying that they are too intellectual to read a Harry Potter book, but that they dislike them.

Milky's arguments, above, can be broadly divided into "qualities of the Harry Potter books" and "people Milky Joe does not like". The first contains the following statements:

  • The quality of being loved by kids
  • The desirable quality of encouraging kids to read rather than play XBox
  • The quality of being good pieces of storytelling
  • The quality of flowing well
  • A quality that makes claiming that they are great works of literature laughable
  • The quality of being fun
  • The quality of teaching kids about friendship and tolerance


People Milky Joe does not like include:


  • People who claim the Harry Potter books are great literature (strictly speaking, these are laughed at rather than disliked, to demonstrate that Milky Joe has his head screwed on aright when it comes to the virtues of the Harry Potter books)
  • People who think that they are too intellectual to read the Harry Potter books but who criticise those who do read them
  • People who feel a duty to hate things because they are popular (these people are pathetic, a word that Milky Joe likes)
  • The subset of the above who say "I have never read one of these books but I am going to go online and say how rubbish they are" (I can't imagine many people actually say that, mind - it sounds rather how R. Kelly might narrate the action of dissing Harry Potter)


These sets - of virtues of the Potter books and of people Milky Joe does not like - are tied together so loosely, however, that I wouldn't call it an argumentum ad hominem - more a sort of condemnation the failure of the universe to provide a benign environment for books about wizards.
 
 
Milky Joe
08:34 / 03.11.08
A Haus of Minions you are correct in much of what you say.

I read my post again last night and confess to a moment of clarity. It became clear that I had spouted a load of judgemental nonsense. Ah well this is what happens when people (well me) are in a bad mood and go online for a rant about the first topic that catches the eye....

I do still believe the spirit of what I was trying to say is correct I just went about explaining my views in the wrong way.
 
 
Quantum
09:34 / 03.11.08
Milky joe, the spirit of what you're trying to say may be correct, but misplaced- try these threads. This thread is "A home away from home for people who have reservations about J.K. Rowling's work", and if you read it you will notice there are five pages of reasons to criticise Potter, many from people who have read all of Rowling's work.

So, your point about disliking it when people criticise without reading is in the wrong thread, showing that you have criticised without reading, which is ironic, thus Ironiam Leviosa! (although I would lean toward Accio Ironiam personally, a grasping rather than lifting action).
 
  

Page: 1234(5)

 
  
Add Your Reply