Yeah, ok, a bit more about Book 7

[ebonlock]

A couple of things that popped into my brain in this particular book that I wanted to put down somewhere and see if anybody else noticed either. First, was it just me or was this the first book where wizards used the exclamation, "God"? I can't remember a single instance of anyone referring to "God" before, particularly not wizards and had always assumed that for the most part their only religion was magic. I mean these people are the ones who separated themselves from the mundane world due to persecution at the hands of Christians so it would make perfect sense to me that they were practicing atheists. Given that most of what they do is a big fat no-no according to the Bible, again, this doesn't surprise me. So why now?

Second, is there some law in the wizarding world that women can either a) work or b) get married and be a stay at home mom? Look at all the witches in the stories, either they're teaching/Ministry/reporting spinsters or happy housewives. Sure you might argue that Tonks went into battle, so did Mrs. Weasley, etc. but do we have any evidence that either of them was working a regular 9-5 job before that? Tonks quite clearly hadn't returned to the Ministry after having Teddy (for obvious reasons) and we have no way of knowing what she might have done had she lived. But if you can find me one example of a witch who doesn't fit into one of these two seemingly exclusive categories I'd love to see it.

All done.

Comments

[aelfsciene.livejournal.com]

It was suggested that we didn't see adult's lives, for the most part, that Harry was mostly concerned with the kids' stories, and we don't know how many of the Hogwarts teachers had families (looked like zero) or how many working mothers there might have been. But it feels like a crumbling, circular argument to me, since you can justify pretty much anything that isn't spelled out in the books, that way. All we really have, concretely, is that women should be mothers or single (Bellatrix being the exception, married without kids, but she's a special sort of crazy), that's the end message going out, and it bothers me a lot.

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

I really don't mean to be fighty but I guess I'd be a lot more concerned about this if the author was a.) male or b.) had been nothing but a housewife before getting published. Since she spent at least some time as a single working mother, that speaks a lot louder to me than the limitations of Harry's perceptions.

There aren't primary schools, are there? And the only daycare we've seen has been grandparents. Doesn't mean it's not there, just that it hasn't been relevant. My apologies that it's so circular. I did find so much of the series incredibly girl-empowering, so I guess I should stay away from this thread.

[aelfsciene.livejournal.com]

I guess, ok, at this point, the whole world knows that Rowling is a woman, even though she uses a sexless nom de plume (will readers a few decades from now know this, though?). But I had no idea she'd been a single mom when she started the series! Maybe other fans follow her in addition to her works, but if you don't know that, and all you see is the books, where your choice is to have a job outside of the home or be a mother...well.

We haven't seen a drop about what's supposed to happen with kids until they're 11, it's true, which feels like a big flaw to me. Someone would have to stay home for 11 years to take care of the kids if they didn't have anywhere to go, or have grandparents to watch over them. But then, as you pointed out, the economy/need to work is a little vague, so it may largely be a worldbuilding issue.

I'd definitely like to discuss the girl-empowering thing more when I'm up there, though, because I haven't particularly felt that (I was, in fact, especially annoyed with constantly-crying Hermione in HP7, and the weakening of Tonks' character in 6 and 7), and I'd love to know where you're coming from with it.

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

We can discuss the general stuff later but I must say, with as much personal dignity as I can muster, that crying a lot doesn't make somebody weak.

You're totally gonna hate stuff in my current novel.

[aelfsciene.livejournal.com]

Well, ok, I'm a bit of an ass for saying that, it's a persona button/thing/problem for me.

Of course, I also get the message "love makes you stupid and weak" from a lot of unintended sources (I ranted and raved after seeing Memoirs of a Geisha), so always bring a lot of issues to the media I consume.

[eska-rina.livejournal.com]

But if we look at Hermione, then love didn't make her weak. Sure, she cried, but she still saved the day more or less 700 times.

If there were on person (in the trio) I thought love made weak, then it was Ron. And that was probably more due to his (ver low) self-esteem (sp?).

[aelfsciene.livejournal.com]

Oh, whoops--I was more meaning the "weak and stupid" argument as another example of baggage I bring with me to media (like my issue with crying), not at all applied to Hermione. She still rocked, and I pretty much love her and Ron's relationship (the kissing scene with the basilisk fangs was absolutely precious).

If anything, the relationship that made me rant most in that vein was Lupin and Tonks!